Pocket Pedal

ST KILDA JUN

CTION

END

OF BIKELAN

E

GRADE SEPERATED

BIKE LANE

ST KILDA JUN

CTION

BUSSES &

HO

RSE CARRIAGES

LYCRA BROS OVERTAKIN

G

90° BIKELANE TU

RN

PEDESTRIAN

XING

TAXIS

BOTTLENECK EN

TRY

PEDS WAITIN

G FOR TRAM

TRAM SU

PERSTOP

TRAM TRACKS

LANE CH

ANGE

BLIND

CURVE

THIN

BIKE LANE

MU

LTPLE LIGHTS

PEDESTRIAN

XING

DO

UBLE PARKED

TAXIS

LANE CH

ANGE X 2

HO

RSESHIT

PEDESTRIAN

CROSSIN

G

90° BIKELANE TU

RN

CARS CROSSIN

G BIKELANE

HO

RSE CARRIAGE/TRAMS

HO

RSE CARRIAGE/TRAMS

HO

RSE CARRIAGE/TRAMS

TRAMSTO

P/BIKELANE SW

AP MATERIAL

DESIGN

HU

B REPAIRS BLOCK B.LAN

E

GRADE SEPERATED

BIKE PATHS

CAT CALLING FRO

M TRAM

STOPS

ALTERNATIVE FO

OTPATH RO

UTE

ST KILDA JUN

CTION

END

OF BIKELAN

E

GRADE SEPERATED

BIKE LANE

ST KILDA JUN

CTION

BUSSES &

HO

RSE CARRIAGES


G

90° BIKELANE TU

RN

PEDESTRIAN

XING

TAXIS

BOTTLENECK EN

TRY

PEDS WAITIN

G FOR TRAM

TRAM SU

PERSTOP

TRAM TRACKS

LANE CH

ANGE

BLIND

CURVE

THIN

BIKE LANE

MU

LTPLE LIGHTS

PEDESTRIAN

XING

DO

UBLE PARKED

TAXIS

LANE CH

ANGE X 2

HO

RSESHIT

PEDESTRIAN

CROSSIN

G

90° BIKELANE TU

RN

CARS CROSSIN

G BIKELANE

HO

RSE CARRIAGE/TRAMS

HO

RSE CARRIAGE/TRAMS

HO

RSE CARRIAGE/TRAMS

TRAMSTO

P/BIKELANE SW

AP MATERIAL

DESIGN

HU


E

GRADE SEPERATED

BIKE PATHS

CAT CALLING FRO

M TRAM

STOPS

ALTERNATIVE FO

OTPATH RO

UTE

Thanks to Stanislav, for taking my idea and turning it into something much more interesting (22,000 words more interesting, to be exact!)

Nads, for putting up with many a grumpy morning and testing the game so many times you’re now better than me at it,

Carmel; for much; needed editing;

Jamie, for many late nights battling Unity and C#,

Jill, for much strategic advice / therapy,

Alexa, for setting up a workshop in spite of looming essays,

Kathy and Jessie, for Oscar-winning filming and interview skills,

Workshop participants, for spending an evening playing Pocket Pedal like pros,

Julia, Terri and Zoe, for allowing me to focus on this at the end,

and my family, for letting me commandeer our house’s entire supply of phones for testing (you can have them back now).

7

TRUCK EGRESS

Cyclists forced to ride in traffic lane

contentsAbstract: How can games be used in activist design?

Project Outline : Testing design strategies: St Kilda Road, Melbourne

1 Cycling p. How can cycling be defined to be compatible with the design process?

1.1 Who does cycling impact?

1.2 Cycling: a need for phenomological urban planning?

1.3 Current and future states of cycling

1.4 How can urban dwellers begin cycling more? 1.4.1 Experiencing infrastructure. 1.4.2 Experiencing cycling practice. 1.4.3 Experiencing access to the bicycle

1.5 Core project aims: 1.5.1 Using artefacts to explore the cycling assemblage 1.5.2 Reducing stakeholder conflict by unpacking the time-space differential 1.5.3 Idea generation through a phenomenological understanding of cycling:

1.6 Next Steps

2 Design Research question: how can design be used as a process for activism?

2.1 Designing a common frame

2.2 Exploring conditions in a collaborative space 2.2.1 Props 2.2.2 Play 2.2.3 Enactments

2.3 Expanding design space

2.4 Design as activism

2.5 Key Outcomes for Workshop activities

3A Games and design Research Question: Can games be useful for participatory design activities?

3.1 What is a game?

3.2 Implication of games on proposal

3.3 Pocket Pedal

9

3.4 Simulation Taxonomy

3.5 Activist game case studies 3.5.1 Rosario Habitat 3.5.2 Forum Theatre 3.5.3 McDonald’s game

3.6 The playful and the simulated 3.6.1 First level simulation: mock up 3.6.2 Second level simulation: conscious-raising 3.6.3 Simulation and authority 3.6.4 Playful simulations

3.7 Participatory design as metagame

3.8 Games as insertable artefacts

3.9 Next Steps: embedding Pocket Pedal into a cycling workshop

3B: Pocket Pedal as artefact

4 Pocket Pedal Workshop

Stakeholders

Workshop Outline:

Activity 1: Interview Game Activity 1A Scene Identification Activity 1B Stakeholder identification Activity 1C Interview Game

Activity 2: Journey Game

Activity 2A: Co-design with traditional Go Pro footage

Activity 2B: Journey Game

Activity 3: Participatory Navigation Simulation through performance chunking Nesting Flexibility through social interaction Consequences

Activity 4: Individual Play A lab for testing ideas Mechanics Stakeholder discussion Abstraction Challenges Results

Pocket Pedal as a discrete artefact

Activity 5: Prompt game Mixed idea generation The need for immediate response in simulation Appreciation of human infrastructure

Workshop Discussion The effectiveness of co-design games Design frame Using rules Using artefacts of various fidelities Creating a safer space through feedback mechanisms Using novelty, engagement and play

5. Urban Gaming Toolkit How can design move me away from existing assumptions surrounding a problem? How should this toolkit be used? What is a productive lab space? How do I design the conditions for a productive lab space? What the Urban Gaming Toolkit won’t do Challenges and omissions

Mindsets

Players, not participants

The Physical Space

The Virtual

Hybrid

Simulation Type Electronic simulations Cardboard computing

Simulation Taxonomy Fidelity Flexibility Immersion Authority

Methods

Set 1: Activating an Audience Glimpses Mock Interviews

11

Vested Interests as collective framing

Set 2: Levelling stakeholders through simulation Breaking down complexity Feedback mechanisms make Magic circles Play creates collective framing Competition = Triangulation

Set 3: Creating participant needs through incomplete gaming Games as part of an assemblage of codesign Nesting games to create contingent, immersive experiences Use Participatory Navigation to collectively play a one player simulation Metagaming through Playful simulation

Artefacts

‘Thing’ props Premade Cards Blank Cards Virtual Smartphones Projection

‘Do’ props Quantified outcomes Scores Warnings

Data generation Data is generated Record everything Roving cameras Prompt reactions Situating reports Combine your data Follow ups

Now it’s up to you

Bibliography

How can games be used in activist design?Even the most imaginative design initiatives often remain unimplemented.

In an attempt to alleviate this gap, between ideas and will, design methods

such as ‘metadesign’ and ‘codesign’ recognise that solutions to complex

challenges cannot be provided by designers alone. These methods

demonstrate that design can achieve more not by attempting to ‘fix’ problems for others, but by initiating, encouraging and curating conditions

that support the broadly inclusive social activities needed for change.

In an innovative extension to the existing practices of collaborative

design, this thesis demonstrates that games can create and support

these indispensable activities. Well-designed games allow stakeholders

to interrogate complex situations, and provide opportunities for safe

experimentation. Research discussed in this thesis confirms that games situated within codesign can reduce ignorance and generate new visions of

possible futures.

The powerful capacities of games for activist design are investigated in this

work via the application to urban cycling. This ‘site’ is a good test for activist

design as it resists change through traditional design methods. Cycling,

embedded in the broader road environment, is both complex (an assemblage

of bodies, infrastructure and behaviour at many scales) and condensed

(involving both space and time, and experienced at different speeds).

It involves a great range of stakeholders who have many backgrounds,

experiences and values. Such complexities lead to conflicts on the road, and impasses in design.

Traditional participatory practice positions designers as filters for a community’s needs. However, filtering input from diverse, potentially conflicting stakeholders is difficult, especially from the outside. These needs cannot be passively found by a designer (particularly when knowledge is

unevenly distributed), but instead must be actively created by a community.

To address this challenge, this thesis sets out to redesign the design process

itself. The result was the creation and running of a dedicated workshop,

amplified by a provocative design toolkit. This workshop tested the ability of games to assist the curation of productive codesign activities, with a

particular focus on urban cycling along St Kilda Road, Melbourne.

Applied to the immensely challenging environment of St Kilda Road, the

toolkit functioned as a range of metagames of varying fidelity, organised around the custom-built smartphone game ‘Pocket Pedal’. The workshopse

metagames can engag participants through play, and encourage a rich,

collaborative exploration of issues in stalemate situations.

13

Testing design strategies: St Kilda Road: Melbourne This work tested the use of games embedded in codesign in a situated cycling

workshop in Melbourne, Australia. Using Pocket Pedal and the Urban Gaming Toolkit, the workshop aimed to create a shared design frame in stakeholders

(refer Section 2), explore issues on St Kilda road and give participants tools to

imagine future cycling possibilities.

St Kilda Road, a scenic boulevard in Melbourne, was chosen as the case study

for codesign workshop activities. The route is a major artery for cyclists,

motorists and trams entering the city from Melbourne’s populous southeast.

Many typical issues encountered in cycling are present on the route: large

volumes of traffic, poorly implemented, low quality bike infrastructure and conflicting stakeholder groups.

The road serves as a concentrated example of urban cycling problems (Refer

Section 1). It is one of the city’s most populous bike and motor routes, has

the highest rate of doorings in Melbourne, and is the busiest tramway in the

world. Recognising these issues, local government has proposed installing

grade separated bike lanes along the St Kilda Road corridor. Upgrades,

however, have stalled for years due to unsupportive State Governments and

community concern for the loss of on-street parking.

In response, the game artefact Pocket Pedal was designed (refer Section 3),

simulating a segment of the route and attempting to recreate virtually the

complex interactions between motorists, cyclists, pedestrians and residents.

In Pocket Pedal, a player must ride to the city along a digital St Kilda Road

without crashing or engaging in high levels of risky behaviour.

To test out the use of game artefacts on stakeholders impacted by the St

Kilda road proposals a workshop was held (refer Section 4). Stakeholders

include cyclists, motorists, transit users, planners, residents and health

professionals. The game was tested both as an individual artefact, and broken

into various elements/props embedded in other codesign activities.

Through knowledge gained from designing physical and virtual games, and

running the workshop, the Urban Gaming Toolkit was made (refer Section 5).

15

ST KILDA JUNCTION

END OF BIKELANE

GRADE SEPERATED BIKE LANE

ST KILDA JUNCTION

BUSSES & HORSE CARRIAGES

LYCRA BROS OVERTAKING

90° BIKELANE TURN

PEDESTRIAN XING

TAXIS

BOTTLENECK ENTRY

PEDS WAITING FOR TRAM

TRAM SUPERSTOP

TRAM TRACKS

LANE CHANGE

BLIND CURVE

THIN BIKE LANE

MULTPLE LIGHTS

PEDESTRIAN XING

DOUBLE PARKED TAXIS

LANE CHANGE X 2HORSESHIT

PEDESTRIAN CROSSING

90° BIKELANE TURN

CARS CROSSING BIKELANEHORSE CARRIAGE/TRAMS

HORSE CARRIAGE/TRAMS

HORSE CARRIAGE/TRAMS

TRAMSTOP/BIKELANE SWAP MATERIAL

DESIGN HUB REPAIRS BLOCK B.LANE

GRADE SEPERATED BIKE PATHS

CAT CALLING FROM TRAMSTOPS

ALTERNATIVE FOOTPATH ROUTE

1

bikes

1 CyclingHow can cycling be defined to be compatible with the design process?

The purpose of this section is to theorise an understanding of urban cycling

best suited for design. Rather than an activity or transit method, cycling will

be conceptualised as an ‘ecology’ of diverse stakeholders, environments and

practices.

This ecology will be defined by investigating how riding is experienced; its influences, impacts, current cycling states and desired future states. From this, implications for the project will be identified, and core design aims established.

1.1 Who does cycling impact?Urban cycling is complex and far reaching. Cycling environments do not just

describe riders and infrastructure, but include drivers, transit users, planners,

residents and business owners. The impacts of cycling are intersectional and

multiscalar:

• At a city-wide level , cycling contributes positively to public health,

congestion and the environment (Fishman et al. 2015). A study in Portland estimated that investing $138 - $605 million in cycling infrastructure would result in savings of $143 – 218 million in fuel, $388 - $594 million

in health care costs, and $7 billion - $12 billion savings in lives (Gotschi

2011).

• At a local level, cycling impacts the street. Though often met with

opposition , upgrading cycling infrastructure has been associated with

increases in revenue amongst nearby business owners. While cyclists

spend less per shop than motorists, riders visit areas more frequently than drivers. (Allatt et al. 2013; Lee & March 2010; O’Connor et al. 2011)

• On an individual level, cycling impacts the body. The health benefits gained from cycling have been found to outweigh any increase in road

trauma. Health benefits have been calculated to be anywhere in the range of 9 to 96 times larger than any increased road risk (Rojas-Rueda et al.

2011; Teschke et al. 2012; Götschi et al. 2015).

In academic, government and design discourse cycling is almost universally

praised. Why then is urban riding still undertaken only by a few?

Implication for design 1: Urban cycling environments extend beyond cyclists. Codesign activities are to establish a method for a diverse set of stakeholders to collaboratively work together.

19

SPLA

T M

APC

RA

SH

DA

TA

UR

BA

N F

ABR

ICS

TR

EE

T M

AP

1.2 Cycling: a need for phenomological urban planning?Urban riding is complex and requires additional analyse than conventional car-based transit discourse (Popan 2015b). By describing cycling as an ecology rather than a series of separate elements, barriers to the practice can

be more readily understood.

Unlike motorists, cyclists are exposed road users. This means a cyclist’s

surrounding environment exerts a much greater influence on them than on other modes of traffic. Simple things like hills, exhaust fumes, frequent stop-starting are insulated in a car but are felt on a bike. This complex

interaction between cyclists and environment leads ethnographists such as

Lugo to describe a bike rider as an ‘assemblage of body, city and machine’, the intersection of the built environment and others moving through it (Lugo 2010).

Cycling environments are also fast. Riding cannot be understood solely in

terms of space, rather, time must be considered. The speed of stakeholders

is important: motorists are much faster than bike riders. There is therefore

a time-space differential between drivers and cyclists, leading to potential

conflicts.

A phenomenological understanding best describes this mix of complexity and

fastness inherent in cycling. Just as a house is not a building but a dwelling

(Whittemore 2014), cycling routes are more than transit routes. Cycling routes are places themselves, ridden through and experienced.

Implication for design 2: The experience of cycling environments differs amongst stakeholder group (cyclists, motorists, transit users, station-ary stakeholders). Rather than focusing on solutions, codesign activities aim to lessen ignorance and equalises an understanding of cycling for all groups.

Game artefacts need to capture the complexity and fastness of cycling in the safety of a workshop setting. Games are to both describe cycling and allow participants to investigate it themselves.

21Bike footrests, Copenhagen

1.3 Current and future states of cyclingIn Australia and other English speaking countries, cycling rates remains low.

While cycling participation is now increasing rapidly (Johnson 2011)primarily in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia and is presented as a thesis by publication.

The Safe System Framework was used as the theoretical model for the research and the research stages included i, only 1% of road trips in Australia

are made by bike.

More pressing still is how dangerous it is. In Melbourne, it has been calculated

that the relativist risk of serious injury of cyclists compared to drivers is 13:1 based on police data and 34:1 based on hospital data (Johnson 2011)primarily in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia and is presented as a thesis by publication.

The Safe System Framework was used as the theoretical model for the research and the research stages included i.

There is also a lack of cycling diversity in English speaking countries, where

female participation is under 30%. The Netherlands, Germany and Denmark all have female cycling rates above 45%. Unlike in these countries, cycling

rates in Australia are also inversely correlated with age (Aldred et al. 2015). Alarmingly, increased participation in cycling has actually seen a reduction in

gender diversity in some areas of the USA (Pucher et al. 2011)

23

5 years of Melbourne bike crash data,

Vic Roads and Monash Alfred Crash Survy

1.4 How can urban dwellers begin cycling more?For cycling to become a less marginal transit mode, the experience of each ‘actor’ in the phenomenological assemblage must be considered (Popan

2015a)but also contributed to a growing interest within sociology for cycling practices (Horton et al. 2006. Though interrelated and unable to be considered in isolation, in context of this thesis, design activities will involve

the following elements of the cycling ecology/assemblage:

1.4.1 Experiencing infrastructureAs discussed previously (Refer 1.2), a cyclist’s experience of the road is personal. Though bike infrastructure attempts to equalise time and space between transport modes (Lugo 2010), cycling infrastructure is gendered and ageist. Higher quality bike infrastructure such as ‘Copenhagen’ style segregated bike lanes are associated with higher female participation (Garrard et al. 2008).

In Copenhagen and other areas of higher cycling rates, the

phenomenological experience of riding has been planned. Beyond segregated

bike lanes, ‘green wave’ traffic lights preserve a rider’s inertia and keep stop-starting to a minimum (figure 1). Angled rubbish bins are placed along cycling routes, optimised for a cyclist throwing rubbish away mid-ride (figure 2). Designing infrastructure at all scales (urban and personal) for a diverse set of

riders emphasises the casual, inclusive cycling needed for high cycling rates

(Gössling 2013).

It is therefore important to consider a diversity of experiences when

designing cycling infrastructure. Rather than building for the stereotypical

MAMIL (middle aged man in lycra), a group perhaps more tolerant of poor riding conditions; the experiences of casual riders, females and people who don’t currently cycle need to explored (Aldred et al. 2015).

1.4.2 Experiencing cycling practice .A cyclist’s vulnerability extends past physical infrastructure. Human

infrastructure (a city’s pedestrian, motorist and cyclists identities and

behaviour) also exerts great influence on a bike rider feeling legitimate on the road.

Legitimacy in cycling is two tiered. Firstly, a broader understanding of what is a legitimate road user is needed beyond motorised transit. Secondly, within

cycling itself, diversity in riding needs to be embraced, beyond the ‘proper’

(read: middle aged, white, male) cyclist (Aldred 2012).

1.4.3 Experiencing access to the bicycleAccess to a bike also impacts cycling rates. This is primarily achieved by

dismantling economic barriers to bike ownership. A great example of this is

Second Chance Cycles, a Melbourne organisation providing cheap bikes to

offenders recently released from prison.

25

Just as important, however, are knowledge gaps: do people feel confident using their bikes in urban spaces?

Implication for design 3: The experience of perceived less ‘legitimate’ rid-ers are important (casual riders, people who don’t currently ride, women, children). Workshop activities are designed to encourage a broad experi-ence of cycling to be explored. Game artefacts aim to create a framework ensuring all participants feel legitimate and able to make active contribu-tion to workshop activities.

1.5 Core project aims: Conceptualising cycling as ecology allows for traditionally opposing elements

(bikes vs cars, drivers vs cyclists) to be considered as an interrelated system

with multiple potentials, rather than just being described in terms of inputs

and outputs (Fuller & Matos 2011). Stakeholders can then explore this system.

This conceptualisation was tested in a codesign workshop (refer Section 4).

The core aims of the workshop are described below:

1.5.1 Using artefacts to explore the cycling as-semblageThe fast and complex nature of cycling means it is hard to quantify. This can be seen from the underreporting of incidents, near misses and harassment

in cycling data. (Sanders 2015; Chaurand & Delhomme 2013)with an average increase in bicycle commuting of 47% (Flusche, 2012. It is therefore difficult to describe cycling environments to stakeholders who do not experience

them on a bike.

Motorists sometimes perceive cyclists behaving erratically, often actually

caused by haphazard bike infrastructure. Design activities aim to

prototype effective methods of recreating the experience of riding, allowing

participants to test out the link between road infrastructure and behaviour.

1.5.2 Reducing stakeholder conflict by unpacking the time-space differential Many drivers have negative personal experiences of slow bikes on the road

(Aldred 2012). The speed difference between cars and bikes contribute to bike riders being perceived as illegitimate (Lugo 2010), often leading to conflicts.

Using the artefacts tested in 1.5.1 cycling can be exploring in terms of time

and space in participants. Through this, a shared conception of the road

amongst stakeholders can be developed.

27

1.5.3 Idea generation through a phenomenologi-cal understanding of cycling: Cyclists experience the built environment differently from motorists. Physical

(bike lanes, green lanterns), dynamic (traffic) and cultural (behaviour, identity, perception) infrastructures (Lugo 2010) influence bike riders to a greater degree than motorists.

: As described previously (refer Section 1.3), inclusivity in the riding

experiences is required for cycling to become a less marginal activity. Through game artefacts, the experience of cycling in

all stakeholders can be interrogated, and a diverse range of personal needs

in cycling can be identified. By embedding these game artefacts in codesign activities, solutions to these needs can be proposed by participants.

1.6 Next StepsThrough understanding cycling as an interlinked ecology, perceptions and

ideas of many different stakeholders can be identified, tested and shared. Rather than conceptualising cycling as a series of right/wrong inputs and

outputs, an environment can be created to explore the diversity of needs in

participants. Through the process of unpacking these needs, a framework for

idea generation can be created.

The following chapter will describe design strategies employed to

productively depict, explore and exploit such ecologies.

29

ST KILDA JUNCTION

Bike lane between many lanes of traffic, route freight vehicles use

31

KINGS WAY BYPASSN

Bike lane ends, replaced by left hand turn traffic lane

33

PROBLEMATIC BIKE BOX

Bike box in right-side lane, forces cyclist to cross a lane of traffic

35

NGV LANE CHANGE

Bike lane crosses two lanes of traffic to right hand side of road; cyclists forced to ride with traffic

UNPROTECTED BIKE LANES

Non-grade seperated bike lanes offer little protection to cyclists on busy route

37

39

ST KILDA JUNCTION

Cyclists must negotiate narrow bike lane between multiple busy lanes of traffic

2

41design

2 DesignHow can design be used as a process for activism?

The purpose of this section is to justify the choice of design methodologies

in relation to the key research questions of this thesis – namely, how activist design can be used for change in complex environments. Design is

conceptualised not as a final outcome, but as a management strategy for dynamic and contingent systems like urban road environments.

This section considers ‘activist design’ as the creation of atmospheres,

toolsets and methods, to encourage productive social activities for effective

change in these systems. As discussed in Section 1, cycling is best

considered as a complex ecology involving conflicting stakeholders with a diverse set of backgrounds and experiences. Such systems cannot be

‘solved’ by single designers.

Rather than designing a ‘solution’ to cycling, a codesign workshop was

devised and tested on stakeholders of the current St Kilda road upgrade

proposals. Using games embedded as artefacts in participatory activities,

this thesis tests a strategy of ‘design[ing] the design process’ (Westerlund

2009). This involves designing artefacts and spaces where stakeholders are empowered to safely challenge existing views, reduce their own ignorance

and collaboratively imagine future possibilities (Albinsson et al. 2008).

Specific game artefacts will be discussed in the next section (Refer Section 3). This section investigates how the design process can be redesigned to

best support the productive social activities needed in cycling, what design

strategies are amplified through the use of games, and how game artefacts can be effectively embedded in a design workshop.

43

Design virtual artifacts for design activism:

Pocket Pedal game, Unity 5

2.1 Designing a common frameAccording to Lars Albinsson, writing in the context of developing new design techniques for ‘Open Innovation’, idea generation is most effective when a diverse set of stakeholders can be part of any development of solutions

(Albinsson et al. 2008). However, integrating stakeholders with varying backgrounds, interests and competencies into successful participatory

design outcomes can be difficult. In cycling, stakeholders including planners, motorists, cyclists, residents and local shop owners might have radically

different experiences, professional backgrounds and beliefs. These diverse

groups need to be able to work together for effective change to happen

This thesis explores the use of interactive prototypes (games) as a method

for designing a common frame in stakeholders. Prototypes are a limited

representation of a design that users can interact with (Brandt 2007). As amplifiers of design processes, prototypes use a combination of rules and props to create a common framework that people can relate to, a levelling of

stakeholders.

Prototypes are ‘boundary objects’, shared between participants but allowing

for different interpretations (Brandt 2006a). These facilitate stakeholder interaction between potentially disagreeing or hostile groups such as cyclists

and drivers. Prototypes achieve this effect by helping participants shift their

attention to interacting with the artifact rather than focusing on each other.

i wish this wAs

i wish this wAs

i wish this wAs

i wish this wAs

:IT'S DANGEROUS HERE




45

i wish this wAs

i wish this wAs

i wish this wAs

i wish this wAs





2.2 Exploring conditions in a collaborative spaceTraditional participatory practice positions an architect as the ‘filter’ for a community’s needs (Cossio et al. 2012). As Westerland theorises in the context of creating participatory artefacts, needs cannot be simply ‘found’

by a designer but must be actively imagined or created (Westerlund 2009). Asking stakeholders what they want is insufficient for design, as individuals simply repeat characteristics of the environments they already know

(Albinsson et al. 2008).

In the context of cycling, some stakeholders (cyclists) are more aware of

their needs than others (drivers). Through an explorative design process, all

stakeholders can discover and test out various needs themselves.

Several strategies for embedding exploratory artefacts in workshop activities

are discussed below:

2.2.1 PropsProps allow a designer to create a framework where participants can

collaboratively explore an issue. Rather than attempting to recreate a

scenario in all its complexity, props simplify; breaking an issue down into manageable pieces participants can engage with.

Using props in design activities encourages stakeholders to move away from

the general and to the specific, as participants must interact with the object in front of them. Images, videos and objects are more powerful than relying

only on language as tools for discovery. When participants can employ all

senses and interact with tangible objects, more reflection and comments are generated (Brandt 2006a).

A designer can influence participatory outcomes through the strategic implementation of props. More abstract props evoke a wider range of

responses in participants, while higher fidelity props narrow response range for more detailed analysis.

In the context of this project, this interpretation of props allowed work-shop activities to abstract elements of cycling (infrastructure precedents, phenomenological aspects of cycling, etc) into conceptual yet tangible ‘chunks’ of riding, readily testable by participants. This deployment of props in the design process is innovative because higher fidelity props (smartphones with the Pocket Pedal game installed on them) can be nested in lower fidelity props (cards instructing participants how to play), creating immersive but adaptable experiences (ref 3.6).

47

participatory design

can be boring

2.2.2 PlayWorkshop activities use play as a core mode of interaction. Huzinga’s work

Homo Ludens identifies play as core to human culture, ‘the free activity standing ... outside ordinary life as being not serious but at the same time

absorbing the player intensely and utterly’ (Huizinga 1955). Play creates

a ‘magic circle’, a protective space where players are spared the physical

consequences of their actions (Bogost 2006).

Interpretations such as that of “ludic design”, introduced by Bill Gaver to

describe new methods for interaction, recognise play not as a wasteful

activity but a mechanism for imagining new possibilities (Sengers et al.

2005). The role of play in the social construction of reality has been compared to mutation in genetics, a constant testing out of new ideas (Brandt et al.

2008).

In the context of this project, play, through design games (refer Section 3) allows props/artefacts in workshop activities to have defined relations/rules with each other. The engagement and safety associated with play is a powerful tool for encouraging participants to interact with props and each other in new ways.

2.2.3 EnactmentsEnacted scenarios are where participants act out situations to understand

a subjective experience (Binder 1999). Enactments situate artefacts both

in the ‘real’ issue (the scenario enacted) and in the safety of the workshop

setting (where the scenario is performed).

This creates an ongoing dialogue both between stakeholders, but also

between stakeholders and the designer. Emphatic scenarios can be

particularly useful at participatory events where participants come from

different backgrounds (Brandt 2006a); the stage and props becoming common language for engagement.

Through improvisation, enactments create processes that redesign

themselves, allowing activities to move beyond even a designer’s initial

conception of a framework (ref 3.5.2). This cycle of exploration and testing

ensures the outcomes of the group surpass any individual potential of

participants (Wood 2008).

49

2.3 Expanding design spaceWithin political theory, agonism is the idea that democracy is intrinsically

contentious, needing confrontation and dissensus to work (DiSalvo 2012). Using the exploratory strategies described above, agonistic but playful

activities can be created for workshop participants

EXAMPLE: FUTURE WORKSHOPS

Future workshops is a participatory strategy employing critique and exploration to encourage participants to step out of preconceptions and engage in novel ideas. In the critique phase, participants criticize current practice. In the fantasy phase, participants create and come up with ideas about how to deal with problems identified in the critique phase. Finally, in the implementation phase, participants return to the present to identi-fy strategies for integrating ideas in reality (Halskov & Dalsgård 2006)&.

Using a similar process, the cycling workshop enabled participants to

challenge worldviews themselves rather than being simply told about change.

Through interaction with game artefacts that provoke, participants engage

in a process of self-discovery. This exploration is much more effective at

encouraging participants to move beyond their previous assumptions than

traditional authoritative dissemination of knowledge (Ratto 2014). This state is called an expanded design space, where a participant’s ability to envision

possible futures is expanded (Brandt 2006a).

51

Public Lab Balloon Mapping Kit (discussed overleaf)

2.4 Design as activismAs discussed throughout this section, activist design does not have to be

focused around producing end results. Such design instead aims to challenge

traditional conceptions around participation and democracy (Björgvinsson et al. 2012) through the creation of politically transformative spaces.

EXAMPLE: PUBLIC LAB BALLOON MAPPING KIT (PREVIOUS PAGE)

Public lab’s Balloon Mapping Kit (and the availability of low-cost helium balloons) enable ‘citizen scientists’ to create higher quality aerial maps than satellites (Wylie et al. 2014). Through designing simple props (helium balloons, low cost camera filters, free algorithms) individuals can perform powerful vegetation analysis on landscapes. The activities enabled by Public Lab alter power dynamics in cartography, challenging conventions of who can make ‘credible and actionable knowledge’ (Wylie et al. 2014).

Diversifying who can make ‘credible and actionable knowledge’ is de-signing an expanded design space for users. Rather than attempting to ‘design’ for better land-use strategies, Public Lab created a space that al-lowed participants to interrogate their environment in ways they couldn’t before. This allows new needs to be identified and novel ideas be generat-ed.

The focus on creating artefacts that similarly empower users is important

in urban cycling environments. Designing objects that enable participants

to perform new methods of analysis (ie. exploring their environment in new

ways) is needed, as bike riders rarely can make ‘credible and actionable

knowledge’ in their cycling environment.

Though design activism aims to create spaces for non-authoritative

exploration (Ratto 2014), high barriers to entry exist in participatory design practice. Issues arise if making activities are too restrictive, not meaningful

(ie. just observation) or if technical/knowledge requirements are too high. Self-selection is an issue all participatory design faces: participants must

be privileged, informed and motivated enough to take part activities. This is

an issue in cycling, as marginalized cyclists (casual riders, females, children)

are key targets for any design intervention.2.5 Key Outcomes for Workshop activities

By considering activist design as a method for creating spaces that

encourage particular kinds of activities amongst stakeholders, much more

complex and far reaching outcomes can be generated than what a single

designer can achieve.

In cycling, and on St Kilda Road, traditional design outcomes for better

cycling may already be known (the local council of Port Phillip has already

designed a bike upgrade scheme for the route). However, these end-product

designs are not enough to manage this complex ecology.

Such proposals do not reduce ignorance amongst stakeholders. As referred

in section 0, some groups (certain motorists) are opposed to upgrades while others (the State Government, the body with actual jurisdiction over the road)

are less aware of a cyclist’s needs. The upgrade scheme has been delayed for

53

years. Workshops can reduce opposition to infrastructural implementation as

stakeholders achieve a level of consensus.

Artefacts let designers create new methods for participants to explore

environment in the safety of a workshop setting. By embedding these

artefacts in activities adaptable to participant responses, designers can

facilitate stakeholders in confronting their own previous conceptions.

Expanding design space through props, play and enactments lets a designer

direct participants to ‘creating’ cycling needs themselves. This creation is

the making of ‘credible and actionable’ knowledge needed for activism.

These game artefacts must be designed carefully. The following section will

discuss how games can be used as embeddable objects for these design

outcomes. A framework for creating an expanded design space amongst

participants will be discussed, and specific game proposals outlined.

3

game

57

3 Games and designCan games be useful for participatory design activities?

Cycling infrastructure can be overwhelming for non-professionals to engage

with (refer Section 1). The codesign process aims to expand design agency

to non-designer stakeholders (refer Section 2). However, designers struggle

to ensure a broad range of people can make the ‘credible and actionable’

knowledge these processes require (refer Section 2.4).

Games offer a level of engagement that most activist processes lack. Since

the 1970’s, participation in the democratic process (perhaps the most common ‘activist activity’) has declined: voter turnout has decreased 8% in

OECD countries, and party membership has dropped over 60% (Lerner 2014). Yet, each year more people play games: 50% more children play video games now than in 1999, and 40% of gamers are female (ESA 2015). People who participate the least in politics (youth, people of colour, low income families)

engage with games the most. (Lerner 2014).

This section investigates how games can create new frameworks for the

activist design strategies explored in Section 2. In the context of this

design process, games are successful not in isolation but when they can

be embedded as artifacts in codesign and engaged with productively by

participants.

59

3.1 What is a game?Traditional media such as an architectural render is representational,

meaning it produces a description of traits and a sequence of events to form a narrative. Games, on the other hand, are based on an alternative structure

known as simulation (Frasca 2003).

A game is a simulation in which players engage in artificial conflict, defined by rules, resulting in a quantifiable outcome (Salen & Zimmerman 2004). Useful in this definition is the notion that designers only indirectly shape a player’s experience. Through the design of mechanics (components,

data and algorithms) and dynamics (the run time behaviour of mechanics

interacting with the player and each other), rewarding experiences in a player

are evoked (a game’s aesthetics) (Hunicke et al. 2004).

In this framework, videogames can be thought of as computational artefacts

arising from a series of rules, or processes (Bogost 2007). Games trying to make a point do not just author arguments through representation such as

words (oral rhetoric) and images (visual rhetoric). Rather, games can use

procedural rhetoric: authoring arguments through the processes, rules and

conditions that define players interaction. Ian Bogost argues such games are persuasive games, creating emergent experiences where the player discovers

and forms opinions for themselves, rather than simply being told (Bogost

2007)(Rockwell & Kee 2014).

3.2 Implication of games on proposalThere is a substantial body of work in the use of games outside playing

for enjoyment, for example educational games (Oak & Bae 2014; Zielke et al. 2009; Steffen P. Walz 2015). However, there is also much criticism surrounding these ‘serious games’. Namely, prioritisation of the serious

objectives of a designer above player experience (Ferrara 2013

& only representation simply). On the other hand, through careful consideration of the processes evoking a player’s experience (gameplay),

persuasive games can facilitate the emergence of new possibilities in players

(Bogost 2007).

Such games share many elements of co and meta design, namely a shift

away from the designer in complete control (Jones 1979), to designing the

conditions for participant self-actualisation (Albinsson et al. n.d.) exploring

emergent and interlinked ecologies (Thackara 2005) (Fuller & Matos 2011), and uncovering unexpected potentials (Wood 2008).

3.3 Pocket PedalPocket Pedal was designed as an iPhone game playfully simulating the riding

conditions on St Kilda Road. The player, on a bike, must navigate safely to the

city. Refer next section ‘Pocket Pedal as Artifact’ for design details.

61

3.4 Simulation TaxonomyIn order to characterise the experience of codesign amplified by play, this thesis introduces a taxonomy of characteristics such games can be classified under:

Fidelity

How many defined rules are there in the simulation? This determines a game’s fidelity. While fidelity does not necessarily produce complexity (is chess less complex than Counterstrike?) higher fidelity simulations attempt to depict reality explicitly. Lower fidelity simulations abstract and simplify.

Flexibility / Rigidity

How flexible are the ‘rules’ governing the game to participants at run-time? More rigid games have defined rules that cannot be changed by players. Rigid simulations generate responses mostly known by the designer, while flexible simulations are open to player interpretation and so generate a diverse range

of potentially unforseen outcomes.

In general, higher fidelity simulations are usually more rigid than lower fidelity simulations.

Authority

Is the game experience designed to encourage participants to challenge

assumptions made in the simulation’s creation? An example of an

authoritative simulation is traffic modelling, used as actual evidence. Realism in games often conveys authority to participants.

Immersion

Immersion is the ability for participants to suspend disbelief (Frasca 2001b)most video-game characters didnot reflect our everyday life for the simple reason that most of them weretrolls, aliens, and monsters. However, this has

changed since the introductionof The Sims (Wright 2000. In the context of simulation design, this can be framed as how much ‘computing’ a simulation

undertakes for a player at run time. Videogames are immersive simulations; most of the experience of playing one is offloaded to the computer and does not need to be considered by the player. Enacted scenarios are less

immersive simulations; participants must ‘generate’ runtime conditions themselves. Immersive simulations can be employed to explore complex

environments as the game takes care of much of the complexity for

participants.

This ‘offloading to the computer’ means immersive simulations are higher fidelity and usually rigid (rules being less discretionary by participants) unless explicitly designed as flexible (see sandbox games such as Minecraft).

63

Rosario Habitat locations,

Rosario, Argentina

3.5 Activist game case studiesThis thesis identifies games that have outcomes resembling codesign goals as activist games. These games create processes letting participants make

the ‘credible and actionable knowledge’ needed for activism (refer 2.4

design as activism). Several games with empowering interaction models

are discussed below in order to establish a framework of successful activist

procedural rhetoric.

3.5.1 Rosario HabitatMedium fidelity, semi-flexible simulation Conditions created that are authoritative

Rosario Habitat uses gaming to successfully codesign villa (informal

settlements) upgrades in the Argentine city Rosario. Previous villa proposals

had been met with hostility. Overcrowded neighbourhoods needed to be rearranged (and houses demolished) to provide safer access, more natural

light, and larger dwelling sizes. (Lerner 2014). A game was created to make this process accessible to residents.

In initial workshops, participants created a framework for determining lot

reallocation (the game’s mechanics). At the beginning of the workshop

residents were given a base set of rules: lots had to be larger than 100m2, and no more than 30% of residents could move from the villa. Residents then proposed, and voted on, additional rules such as weighting systems

and priorities for lot allocation (for example, higher priority for people with

disability and family close by). This framework established the conditions for

the game.

Once the framework for lot allocation had been created, the next series of workshops dealt with lot allocation itself (the game’s dynamics). These

workshops were collaborative planning simulations. In each workshop, a

large map of the portion of the neighbourhood workshop participants lived

was printed. Transparencies were then given out representing 100m sized lots. Using the lot allocation framework participants had created in the

initial workshops, residents attempted to redistribute lots by sticking the

transparencies over the existing condition plan.

The programme created a successful slum upgrade method now used in many

other villas in Rosario (Lerner 2014). The game process mediated conflicts when they inevitably occurred, as workshop participants had created the

conditions governing reallocation themselves. Through simulation, urban

planning became safe and actionable for residents. Participants tested lot

arrangements, altered the shape of transparencies to fit more effectively, identified lot space that could be negotiated for, and determine which residents had priority.

The simulation created a productive interaction model in potentially

conflicting participants. The use of self-generated rules, props (transparencies indicating lots) and immediate response (a successful /

unsuccessful transparency arrangement) created a shared design frame

(refer Section 2.1) where participants were encouraged to collaboratively test

out ideas (refer Section 2.2). The game framework empowered participants,

65

giving them a tool to create complex lot arrangements (optimised by the

social fabric of the neighbourhood) that could not have been achieved by

planners alone.

In the context of this thesis, Rosario Habitat demonstrates the productive conditions that are generated by using a combination of rigid (predefined) and flexible (self-generation) rules in simulation. Leaving this calculation to participants (less immersion) created a processes that was authorita-tive yet still generated personal outcomes.

3.5.2 Forum TheatreLow fidelity, flexible simulation Conditions created for personal critique

In Forum Theatre individuals participate in structured, enacted scenarios to learn about and critique a situation. The aim is not to produce solutions, like in Rosario Habitat, but create meaningful debate.

Forum theatre creates participatory enactments. Actors present a short play where the protagonist must deal with a powerful character not letting them

achieve a goal. After one representation, anyone in the public can become

a ‘Spec-actor’. That is, taking the place of the protagonist and proposing,

through improvised acting, a solution to the scenario.

“The game is spect-actors—trying to find a new solution, trying to change the world—against actors—trying to hold them back, to force them to

accept the world as it is.”

--Augustus Boal cited by (Lerner 2014).

Forum theatre uses the exploratory nature of games to unpack an issue. Bodies and the initial scenario form game mechanics. Game dynamics (run

time behaviour) are created through the emergent interaction between

participant and actors. What is created is a simulation; a safe space where participants test out ideas and see immediate, situated responses. As

problems dealt are complex, solutions generated are often incomplete. The

simulation (ie the enacted scene) can be run several times, each play offering

a chance for new perspectives (Frasca 2001a).

For the purposes of PocketPedal, this example demonstrates the link be-tween low fidelity and flexibility that is readily available through human improvisation.

Such simulations avoid simply satisfying pre-known conditions estab-lished by the designer (Binder 1999) Through ad lib dialogue, a simulation can be created that is contingent and highly adaptive to participant re-sponse. The fluidity of human interaction both accommodates and chal-lenges personal interpretation of an issue.

67

3.5.3 McDonald’s gameHigh fidelity, rigid simulation Conditions created to depict large scale complexity

A similar process to ‘spec-acting’ is attempted digitally in the McDonald’s

Videogame, a web-based protest game designed by the Italian game studio

La Molleindusria. In the game, a player controls all elements of the global fast

food chain: deciding whether to engage in illegal deforestation to improve soy

yields, using hormones to increase beef production, creating manipulative

health campaigns to induce demand. Such tactics become increasingly

necessary to keep the business afloat as land is over-farmed and health organisations provoked.

Through a cycle of choosing corporate strategy and dealing with subsequent consequences, a player becomes aware of the necessity of corruption in the global fast food industry. Rather than simply informing a player about

McDonald’s numerous human rights and environmental breaches, players

test out the interconnectedness of the disparate parts of McDonald’s

production machine.

For PocketPedal, the power of virtual representation (immersion) in mak-ing complexity manageable for participants is desired. Through a videog-ame, the interconnectedness of scenes in a vast, global-scale assemblage were made accessible to the player. Such complexity (recreating the deforestation process, management of a store’s employees, etc) would be difficult to recreate in more abstract participatory processes as props are less defined.

The rigid framework of the high fidelity simulation means, however, that outcomes are predetermined and known. Players always have to use ‘bad’

corporate tactics. Unlike the flexibility of improvisation, the game logic offers no way to challenge this model and discover things unintended by

the designer. Play here simply encourages individuals to engage in further

corruption rather than inspiring participants to critique assumptions and disrupt.

69

3.5.4 Lessons learned for Pocket PedalIn the context of this thesis, these three case studies demonstrate how a

designer can shape simulation outcomes through the parameters of fidelity, flexibility, authority and immersion. Parameters influence each other (ie. an immersive simulation is usually less flexible) meaning there are trade-offs in simulation design. With effort, some of these effects can be mitigated. For example, sandbox games like Minecraft are immersive and flexible through the creation of even more rules defining the game’s malleability.

This thesis proposes that an easier method for designers (perhaps less technically capable at making such complex simulations) is to embed higher fidelity (rigid, immersive, good at describing complex scenarios) simulations in lower fidelity (flexible, contingent, more innovative out-comes) activities. These activities themselves can be games, allowing multiple ‘levels’ of simulation to complement each other. This is an effec-tive strategy for creating immersive yet personal simulations.

Games, however, need to be designed to allow this nesting to occur. The next

section will discuss the ‘levels’ of simulation occurring in the Pocket Pedal

workshop, and the optimisation needed for embedding the higher fidelity game into more flexible design activities.

71

3.6 The playful and the simulatedAs discussed throughout this thesis, games are simulations, meaning they

allow a player to experimentally interact with a dynamic system (Woods

2004). Pocket Pedal uses higher fidelity simulation (seen in the McDonald Game) embedded in codesign to create outcomes unforseen by the designer

(seen in Forum Theatre and Rosario Habitat).

3.6.1 First level simulation: mock upPocket Pedal uses simulation for participatory goals on two levels. The

first level of simulation occurs in participant interaction within the game world. Using virtual mock-ups of a bike, hazards and world (refer Pocket

Pedal gaming book), participants will be able to explore, in the safety and

convenience of a workshop setting, the experience of cycling in a complex

urban environment. Playing Pocket Pedal on this level is an attempt at

equalising stakeholder knowledge, a tool for creating a common frame (Refer Section 2.1) for participants from various backgrounds and experiences.

3.6.2 Second level simulation: conscious-raisingThe second level embeds the cycling simulation in codesign. This involves

encouraging participants not to accept the game at face value but to critique it.

Though appearing rational, all simulations are non-objective as value

judgements are made in a designer’s choice of what parts of reality are

simplified. In the urban simulator Sim City, raising taxes always leads to riots rather than increasing productivity and social cohesion (Bogost 2006). These value judgments are sometimes designed with the specific intent to influence a player’s worldview, demonstrated most overtly by propaganda games such

as America’s Army. Simulations like these portray geopolitical conflicts in a way that justifies and celebrates US involvement (Allen 2011) without players necessarily being aware the game’s ulterior motive.

As Sherry Turkle writes, provoking players to analyse and deconstruct design

assumptions made in a simulation facilitates participants to question their own ideological assumptions:

“It would take as its goal the development of simulations that actually help players challenge the model’s built-in assumptions. This new criti-cism would try to use simulation as a means of consciousness-raising”

-Sherry Turkle in Life On Screen. Identify in the Age of the Internet, in (Frasca 2001b)

Incorporating player critique expands a game beyond a designer’s initial desired outcomes. Rather than having set goals like those found in the

McDonald’s game (learning that fast food requires corruption), outcomes unknown to the designer (the debate aroused in Forum Theatre) can be generated.

But how can a simulation be made to encourage critique? Videogame theorist Gonzalo Frasca believes that immersion (Refer 3.3) restricts this conscious-

73

raising in a player (Frasca 2001b)most video-game characters didnot reflect our everyday life for the simple reason that most of them weretrolls, aliens,

and monsters. However, this has changed since the introductionof The Sims

(Wright 2000. He identifies with German playwright Bertolt Brecht’s criticism of Aristotelian theatre, where an audience is immersed in a play without an

opportunity to take a step back and think critically about what is happening

onstage.

Pocket Pedal, however, positions immersion as a useful tool in gaming. In a

workshop setting, players need help suspending their disbelief in order to

experience the phenomenological aspects of cycling in the safety of a room

(Refer 1.2). An immersive game world aids the creation of a ‘magic circle’, a

design space where participants can explore possibilities without worrying

about consequences in the real world (Refer 2.2).

3.6.3 Simulation and authorityImmersion alone does not limit critique. Rather, simulations themselves convey conditions of authority (Refer 3.3). Unlike games, the non-immersive

experiences of traffic simulations are often uncritically considered ‘objective’ depictions of reality. This is true even when such models are revealed to

rely on many arbitrary assumptions (refer Dr John Goldberg’s criticism of

Translink’s continual use of inflated traffic modelling in NSW road projects (Goldberg n.d.)). Divorced from accuracy, it seems the autotelic nature of

games (playing a game simply for its own sake) itself transmits subjectivity.

Within games, immersion too can be designed to express differing levels

of authority. Virtual Warrane, a virtual experience of the Gadigal people of

Sydney Cove before the First Fleet, projects authenticity (Fig x). Authority is conveyed through the game’s realistic visualisation of landscape and people.

Players cannot assess the validity of the designers’ research, but rather are

conditioned to accept it through the game’s confident and serious portrayal of its pre-European world.

3.6.4 Playful simulationsPocket Pedal, on the other hand, is designed as a playful cycling experience.

Reality is not the desired outcome of the game, and this is expressed to the

player. The virtual riding environment is exaggerated, stylised and simplified, projecting to participants that the cycling experience is non-real, designed

and open to being challenged This allow a player to remain at the critical

distance advocated by Frasca (Refer 3.5.2) while still being immersed in, and having confidence in, the riding experience. The game can be thought of as a playful simulation, a non-authoritative immersive experience.

A playful simulation aims to expose the value judgements made in a game

as non-natural (that is, decided by the designer) and fallible. Framing participant interaction as play (Refer 2.2.2 play) avoids conditioning

participants to reach specific and serious end goals and instead prompts personal interpretation (Pelletier & Kneebone 2015). The parameters that are often hidden from the player in the black box of a simulation are highlighted

as artificial through exaggerated, non-realistic representation. Through the non-intimidating atmosphere it evokes, a playful simulation encourages

critique in assumptions made in its construction. At the same time, these simulations still project the confidence needed for participants to explore ideas in its immersive experience.

75

AUTHORITATIVE SIMULATION

Virtual Warrane uses a realistic depiction of Port Jackson to convey authority in its research of pre-European Warrane life.

77

PLAYFUL SIMULATION

Pocket Pedal, on the hand, conveys the artificialness of world it creates to players by emphasising ‘gameness’.

This is a strategy to provoke participants to challenge assumptions made in Pocket Pedal’s depiction of existing St Kilda Road conditions.

79

3.7 Participatory design as metagameSome participatory designers believe defined (non-abstract) props like Pocket Pedal work to narrow participant response. They argue opportunities

for personal interpretation is limited when participants are exposed to

defined design intent (Brandt et al. 2008). Human improvisation is much more flexible than the discrete rules of videogames (Refer 3.5.3).

Yet defined game worlds have their use in the workshop (Refer 3.4). An immersive experience is needed to create a framework for interrogating the

complexity of urban cycling environments (Refer Section 1).

Frasca believes games that can be modified by the player more readily reflect personal interpretation. He argues this ‘modability’ allows a player to challenge a designer’s conception of the game (Frasca 2001a). This flexibility through modding, however, relies on technical confidence most non-gamers lack.

Rather than framing a video game as an independent unit, this thesis

considers Pocket Pedal a high fidelity artefact (an immersive assemblage of all elements of the game medium) embedded in a codesign process.

Low-fi workshop activities are flexible enough to accommodate a diverse set of understandings without needing the technical skills required to force adaptability on a high-tech simulation. The collaborative and informed

debate generated by playful simulations is an input designers can ‘run’

through more flexible and personal codesign activities.

This is considering the metagame, a game’s relationship with its

surrounding external context (Salen & Zimmerman 2004). The Pocket Pedal workshop’s more abstract and flexible metagame allows a broader range of interpretations to be made than simply playing Pocket Pedal alone.

81

LEE

Most mornings, Lee gets up at 5am for his regular 20km Bayside ride, testing out his brand new $2000 sportsbike. St Kilda road is his ‘normal life’ commute. Cyclists are slow, so Lee often rides in the car lane.

trish

Trish studies commerce at Melbourne Uni. She’s loving the vintage steel bike she bought in Collingwood last month.Cycling up St Kilda road can be dangerous at times, but Trish tries to enjoy the ride!

mArk

A ‘creative type’, Mark works part-time in the city, starting his days a little later than most Often late, Mark rides a little recklessly to make up for lost time. How else are you going to claim space on the road unless you cycle a little bit aggressively?

TERRY

Terry doesn’t see herself as a proper ‘cyclist’: those wear lycra and ride fast! Safety conscious, Terry makes sure to always wear hi-vis on her ride up St Kilda Road.

‘CHARACTER CARD’ PROPS CREATED FROM POCKET PEDAL GAME

3.8 Games as insertable artefactsHow can the virtual world of PocketPedal be transformed into a readily

‘insertable’ artefact for the codesign process?

Smartphones were chosen as the target platform for Pocket Pedal. This

platform was identified as being advantageous for use in workshop activities:

Smartphones are familiar.

Smartphones are everyday objects. With a penetration rate of 90% in Australia (cite), unlike game consoles and even computers, almost all

participants are familiar with touch devices. This ubiquity has already expanded gaming. Services like Apple’s App Store have majorly contributing

to the explosive growth of non-traditional gaming demographics (ESA 2015).

Smartphones are easy to embed

Smartphones are portable and easy to source. Activities don’t have to be

arranged around a specific space (for example, a gaming console or screen). Rather, phones can be discretely inserted into participatory activities both

indoors and outdoors. Many units can be sourced for an activity, allowing

game experience to be personal with participants divided amongst numerous

devices.

Advantages to a constrained scope

Due to the limited nature of the device, smartphone games have a design

language separate from PC or console games, again advantageous to a

workshop format:

- Their reduced complexity means smartphone games are feasible for

independent developers (and academics) to create. Limited processing power, screen size and player attention mean games not only are suited,

but thrive, when scope is limited. Such games are expected by even a

game-literature audience to have lower quality (but still attractive) graph-

ics and simpler mechanics, suited for non-real playful simulations.

- Unlike traditional gaming, play on smartphones is designed to be flexible. Games must facilitate short duration play-time, being set aside, and then

being resumed later (Daniel Eriksson, Johan Peitz 2005)June 16th - 20th, 2005, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (http://www.gamesconfer-

ence.org/digra2005/overview.php. This type of play is not reliant on defined time-slots and can easily be integrated into workshop activities.

- Layers of abstraction (such as game menus, virtual control sticks, etc) are removed to reduce clutter on a phone’s small screen. Objects are often manipulated by direct touch rather than through controllers (Kim & Lee 2015). The new design paradigm for smartphone gaming is more legible

to a non-gaming audience unversed in traditional gaming conventions.

Both as physical artefacts and the design consequences they entail, smartphones and smartphone games blend computing/the virtual into

ordinary life. The following section details how Pocket Pedal is embedded into

the codesign Pocket Pedal workshop.

83

3.9 Next Steps: embedding Pocket Pedal into a cycling workshopGames are useful artefacts for designers. The self-discovery of playing

a game is well suited for collaboration and engagement. Through the

parameters of simulation (fidelity, flexibility, immersion and authority) designers can create the conditions for player interaction. However, what

is most important is the metagame: how playing games can create spaces

that support activities needed for change in complex ecologies (creating a

common frame, collaborative exploration, expanding design space).

The conditions of the metagame must also be designed. Game artefacts

need to be optimised for nesting in codesign, both physically (the game

platform) and virtually (the simulation). Playful mobile simulations are one

such strategy, encouraging critique and debate that can easily be used by designers in the participatory process.

A workshop was run to measure the impacts of using games as playful

simulations embedded in codesign. The ‘Pocket Pedal workshop’ inserted the

Pocket Pedal game in a codesign process involving stakeholders affected by

cycling on St Kilda Road, Melbourne (refer Project Outline p.).

Rather than simply asking the diverse set of participants what their needs

were, the workshop employed a series of design games based around Pocket

Pedal to generate a more informed and interesting discussion.

The next section describes workshop results, both as individual codesign

activities and as an overall participatory process.

85

Pocket PEdal

as ArtI FACT

87

Pocket PEdal

as ArtI FACT

SIMPLE CONCEPT:

Travel in X direction as far as possible. Don’t get hit

EFFECTIVE GRAPHICS:

Blocky grapthics engag-ing, perform well on low powered mobile devices and metricise world (each horizontal band of road and grass is one hop and one point).

NO CLUTTER:

Player control by swipes (up, down, left, right). No buttons cluttering screen. Controls add complexity and can be intimidating to non-gaming audiences.

89

PRECEDENT:CROSSY ROAD

CREATED BY TWO GUYS IN THEIR 20’s, ONE GUY IN HIS 30’s

REACH 10+ MILLION

PLATFORM SMARTPHONE

S

ABOutPocket Pedal is an iPhone game playfully simulating the riding conditions on St Kilda Road. The player, on a bike, must navigate safely to the city.

BIKE HEALTH

How safe is you riding? Bike health reflects this.

Compliance with road rules, staying in the bike lane, and navigating obstacles successfully increases bike health.

Riding outside the bike lane and colliding with traffic decreases bike health.

YOUR SCORE

The safer your riding is, the higher your score will be.

Your rider gains points for every 10 metres sucessfuly cycled towards the city.

The number of points gained per 10 metre increment depends on your bike health.

On full bike health, you’ll gain 10 points. Lower health means you gain less points. Riding dangerously until your bike health is empty 0 means you stop accruing points.

BIKE LANE

Try to stay in the bike lane.Here, your bike health will slowly recharge to full.

This means you’ll gain more points and have enough health to survive a crash or two.

Being in the bike lane has its own dangers: make sure you watch out for those cars doors!

THE PLAYER

This cyclist is you. You’re a hipster girl; a lyrca bro; or a reckless dude in his mid twenties.

Tap to pedal, tap each side of the screen to turn.

HAZARDS

Colliding with traffic decreases your bike health; per the collision’s severity.

On low bike health, impacting an obstacle will cause you to crash, ending your game.

91

93

95

97

99

101

103

SHRINE

The narrow bike lane positioned on a blind turn ensures this portion of the route has a high

HIGH RATES OF DOORING

Narrow bike lanes throughout route force cyclists into close

DOUBLE PARKED TAXIS

Outside hotels near Domain Interchange force riders onto the road

KINGS WAY LANE CHANGE:

Bike lane ends; bike riders must cross a lane of traffic, then merge with traffic lane to enter bike box

ALBERT ROAD

Many cars suddenly turn left across bikelane to turn down Albert road

105

VICTORIA BARRACKS

THE MELBOURNIAN

PRINCESS BRIDGE

VICTORIAN SCHOOL OF THE ARTS

NATIONAL GALLERY OF VICTORIA

ARTS CENTRE

VCA LANE CHANGE

Outside VCA, cyclists forced to cross two lanes of traffic to stay in bike lane (crazy)

NGV BUSSES

Tour busses outside NGV park in bike lane, force cyclists onto road.

FLINDERS ST STATION

UNPROTECTED BIKELANES

do not offer any protection for cyclists from passing vehicles

general run

DEPTH OF FIELD (BLUR)

Simulates the loss of visual acuity of far away objects experienced by a

UBER

Double parked uber, cyclist forced out of bike lane

general run

TAXI

Double parked taxi in lane, cyclist forced to enter traffic lane

OPEN DOOR

Open doors become hazards to cyclists when cars park to the left of the bike lane with no buffer zone

OVERSIZED VEHICLE

Truck parked in car space egresses onto bike lane

BIKE LANE ENDS

Bike lane replaced by left hand turning lane for traffic

TIME-SPACE DIFFERNTIAL

Bikes are slower than cars, appear to ‘hold up traffic’ as cyclists forced to ride in front of cars

kings way bypass

NO BIKE LANE

Cyclists must merge with traffic

BIKE BOX ON RIGHT-SIDE TRAFFIC LANE

To facilitate left hand turning for motorists, bike riders must ride in the ‘overtaking’ traffic lane, surrounded themselves on all sides by cars.

OUTSIDE VCA AND NGV

BIKE LANE CROSSES TWO LANES OF TRAFFIC

To again facilitate cars turning right, the St Kilda Road bike lane crosses two lanes of traffic near the NGV

BUSSES OUTSIDE NGV

Oversized tour busses outside NGV egress on bike lane, often forcing cyclists into traffic

arts precinct

fingers

+10 force

cheat 1.5

units left

TAP

middle of screen to pedal

SWIPE LEFT

to cheat (move 1.5 units left)

SWIPE DOWN

to break

40º turn

20º turn

60º turn

300/200/100px

TAP LEFT & RIGHT OF THE PLAYER

to turn.

The closer to the screen edge, the sharper the turn

SWIPE UP

to enter hi vis mode, the ‘easy’ setting for the right.

Hi Vis mode lets the player go

hazardsVAN

Spawn chance: 10% Location: Parked, Characteristics: Oversized vehicle Dynamics: has chance to open door on rider

TAXI

Spawn chance: 5% Location: Double parked, Characteristics: Regular size vehicle Dynamics: Rider must navigate around taxi, forced to enter traffic lane

ORANGE CAR

Spawn chance: 20% Location: Double parked, Characteristics: Regular size vehicle Dynamics: A slack driver, will occasionally veer into bike lane.

BLUE CAR

Spawn chance: 20% Location: Double parked, Characteristics: An overly cautious driver, will stop well before a cyclist and refuse to drive until coast is clear.

PINK CAR

Spawn chance: 50% Location: Double parked, Characteristics: A regular driver; not wanting to speed or veer into the bike lane.

119

ANGRY 4WD

Spawn chance: 10% Location: Double parked, Characteristics: An aggressive driver. Will speed and veer into bike lane. Will not stop for cyclists!

UBER

Spawn chance: 5% Location: Double parked, Characteristics: Regular size vehicle Dynamics: Rider must navigate around Uber, forced to enter traffic lane

OVERSIZED TRUCK

Spawn chance: 5% Location: Double parked, Characteristics: A large truck. Does not fit into regular sized parking space and spills out onto bike lane.

121

REGULAR RIDERS

Bike riding is diverse. Cycling St Kilda Road, however, is not. Females comprise only around 25-30% of St Kilda Road bike riders.

HIGH VIS MODE

One strategy riders employ to try to protect themselves is wearing hi vis. In the game, swiping UP turns Hi Vis Mode on.

When you’re wearing Hi Vis, cycling is easy. You’ll simply ride through traffic like a ghost and cannot crash.

riders

123

infrastructure

125

BIKE LANE

St Kilda Road’s bike infrastructure is shocking. Bike lanes are unprotected, and often end when they are needed most.

As there is no buffer zone between rider and parked cars on narrow bike path, cycling in the lane puts riders at risk of being doored. However, cyclists cannot ride in the (arguably safer!) traffic lane.

To recreate this dilemma in game, only in the bikelane does a player increase bike health

This forces a player to face the constant danger of an unseen car door opening. To help non-gamers play, swiping left ‘cheats’ and moves the player back to the bike lane.

BIKE BOXES

Bike boxes, or ‘advanced stop lanes’, provide a space for cyclists at intersections.

These spaces, demarked as painted green rectangles, allow bike riders to be situated in front of traffic at red lights.

At an intersection, motorists expect cyclists to be in the bike box, and will often honk when riders are not (for examle, taking up a left hand turn lane instead).

St Kilda Road, however, has some bike boxes positioned in the right-side lane. This means cyclists often must risk crossing a car lane and merging with traffic in order to reach one.

In Pocket Pedal, to simulate the ‘advantages’ of entering a bike box (in terms of safety and social pressure), bike health increases to full when one is entered. It is risky, however, to reach some; just like real life.

scale

127

SCALE

The rider, cars and the wider built environment are each drawn at a different scale relative to each other.

This ensures the relationship between body (cyclist), behavior (traffic) and infrastructure (the world) experienced in cycling is not ‘drowned out’ simply by differences in physical size.

RENDER

The St Kilda Road of Pocket Pedal is not a simple recreation of the existing route.

The world instead is quantified into a series of discrete bits and pixels, transforming the messiness of reality into a readily approachable game.

icons of st kilda road

129

BUILDINGS TRANSLATED IN GAME

131

1

2

3

4

133

5

6

7 8

9

10

1

135

2

137

3

139

4

141

5

143

6

145

7

147

8

149

9

151

10

153

win condtions

155

157

crash conditions

movementusing UnityEngine;

using System.Collections;

using System.Collections.Generic;

using UnityEngine.UI;

//using System;

public class CarTutorial : MonoBehaviour {

public bool raycastcheck;

public List<AxleInfo> axleInfos; // the information about each

individual axle

//publicfloatmaxMotorTorque;//maximumtorquethemotorcanapply

to wheel

privatefloatrightWheelSpeedRef;

privatefloatleftWheelSpeedRef;

privateRigidbodyrb;

publicfloatmaxSteeringAngle;//maximumsteeranglethewheelcan

have

publicfloatangle;//xpositionoftap

publicfloatangleCalc;//adjustedxpositionoftap

publicfloatangleSafe;//safezoneforstraighttap

public Vector3 tap; //addForce vector applied to player on tap

publicfloatspeed;//Ypositionoftap

publicfloatspeedCalc;//adjustedypositionoftap

publicGameObjectparentPlayer;

public bool goingStraight;

publicfloatturnLimit;

publicfloatrotateAngle;

//publicRigidbodycollisionrigid;

//publicfloatpower;

//publicfloatprevPower;

//publicfloatpowerset;

//Car Touch script

privateVector3fp;//Firstfingerposition

privateVector3lp;//Lastfingerposition

publicfloatdragDistance;//Distanceneededforaswipeto

register

// Maximum turn rate in degrees per second.

//autoRotate

publicfloatturningRate=30f;

privateQuaternion_targetRotation;

private int bikeTrackLayer;

public Transform target;

publicfloatteleSpeed;

public bool hasCollider;

publicGameObjectpowerup;

publicGameObjectpowerdown;

//Rotationweshouldblendtowards.

//privateQuaternion_targetRotation=Quaternion.Euler(0,270,0);

//Quaternion.identity;


//Vector3 impulse;

//AutoRotatedirection

public Vector3 rotateVector;

public int rotateNumber;

publicGameObjectcameraFocus;

//diagnostics

publicfloatspeedRate;

newVector3jump;

publicfloatprevTime;

//visual wheel meshes

publicboolmoveRight;

//character select

publicGameObjectchar1;



publicfloatcharSelect;

publicGameObjectHVBoy;

publicGameObjectHVGirl;

publicGameObjectHVMamil;

publicGameObjectHVmesh;

publicGameObjectNormalmesh;

publicboolcanReload=true;

voidStart()

{

canReload=false;

angle=0.5f;

rb=GetComponent<Rigidbody>();

prevTime=Time.time;

bikeTrackLayer=1<<15;

raycastcheck=false;

hasCollider=true;

charSelect=Random.Range(1,4);

Debug.Log(charSelect);

if(charSelect==1)

{

char1.SetActive(true);

Normalmesh=char1;

HVmesh=HVBoy;

Debug.Log("char1");

}

if(charSelect==2)

{


Normalmesh=char2;

HVmesh=HVGirl;

Debug.Log("char2");

}

if(charSelect==3)

{


Normalmesh=char3;

HVmesh=HVMamil;

Debug.Log("char3");

}

}

voidUpdate()

{

//setautoRotatedirection

_targetRotation=Quaternion.Euler(rotateVector);

if(rotateNumber==0)

{

rotateVector=newVector3(0,270,0);

//cameraFocus.transform.rotation=Quaternion.

RotateTowards(transform.rotation,_targetRotation,turningRate*Time.

deltaTime);

cameraFocus.transform.rotation=Quaternion.

Euler(0,270,0);

}

if(rotateNumber==1)

{

rotateVector=newVector3(0,259.1f,0);


Euler(0,240,0);

}

if(rotateNumber==2)

{


}

if(rotateNumber==3)

{


}

if(rotateNumber==4)

{

rotateVector=newVector3(0,280.9f,

0);

}

//touch stuff

foreach(TouchtouchinInput.touches)

{

if(touch.phase==TouchPhase.Began)

{

fp=touch.position;

lp=touch.position;

//get x co-ord of tap

angle=(touch.position.x/Screen.

width);

}

if(touch.phase==TouchPhase.Moved)

{

lp=touch.position;

}

if(touch.phase==TouchPhase.Ended)

{

//IGNOREUNTIL'MOVEDOWNCODE'

//Firstcheckifit'saswipe

if(Mathf.Abs(lp.x-fp.x)>

dragDistance||Mathf.Abs(lp.y-fp.y)>dragDistance)

{//It'sadrag

//Now check what direction

the drag was

//First check which axis

if(Mathf.Abs(lp.x-fp.x)

>Mathf.Abs(lp.y-fp.y))

{//Ifthehorizontal

movement is greater than the vertical movement...

if(lp.x>fp.x)

//If the movement was to the right

{//Rightmove

//MOVE

RIGHTCODEHERE

moveRight=true;

Invoke("resetMoveRight",0.2f);

}

else

{

{

//Left

move

//MOVE

LEFTCODEHERE

CancelInvoke("raycastFalse");

raycastcheck=true;

Invoke

("raycastFalse",5);

}

CHARACTER SELECT: (boy, girl, lycra hero)

AUTO ROTATES player to forward position to aid non-gamers play

159using UnityEngine;




//using System;

public class CarTutorial : MonoBehaviour {

public bool raycastcheck;

public List<AxleInfo> axleInfos; // the information about each

individual axle

//publicfloatmaxMotorTorque;//maximumtorquethemotorcanapply

to wheel

privatefloatrightWheelSpeedRef;

privatefloatleftWheelSpeedRef;

privateRigidbodyrb;

publicfloatmaxSteeringAngle;//maximumsteeranglethewheelcan

have

publicfloatangle;//xpositionoftap

publicfloatangleCalc;//adjustedxpositionoftap

publicfloatangleSafe;//safezoneforstraighttap

public Vector3 tap; //addForce vector applied to player on tap

publicfloatspeed;//Ypositionoftap

publicfloatspeedCalc;//adjustedypositionoftap

publicGameObjectparentPlayer;

public bool goingStraight;

publicfloatturnLimit;

publicfloatrotateAngle;

//publicRigidbodycollisionrigid;

//publicfloatpower;

//publicfloatprevPower;

//publicfloatpowerset;

//Car Touch script

privateVector3fp;//Firstfingerposition

privateVector3lp;//Lastfingerposition

publicfloatdragDistance;//Distanceneededforaswipeto

register

// Maximum turn rate in degrees per second.

//autoRotate

publicfloatturningRate=30f;

privateQuaternion_targetRotation;

private int bikeTrackLayer;

public Transform target;

publicfloatteleSpeed;

public bool hasCollider;

publicGameObjectpowerup;

publicGameObjectpowerdown;

//Rotationweshouldblendtowards.

//privateQuaternion_targetRotation=Quaternion.Euler(0,270,0);



//Vector3 impulse;

//AutoRotatedirection

public Vector3 rotateVector;

public int rotateNumber;

publicGameObjectcameraFocus;

//diagnostics


newVector3jump;


//visual wheel meshes

publicboolmoveRight;

//character select




publicfloatcharSelect;

publicGameObjectHVBoy;

publicGameObjectHVGirl;

publicGameObjectHVMamil;

publicGameObjectHVmesh;

publicGameObjectNormalmesh;

publicboolcanReload=true;

voidStart()

{

canReload=false;

angle=0.5f;


prevTime=Time.time;

bikeTrackLayer=1<<15;

raycastcheck=false;

hasCollider=true;

charSelect=Random.Range(1,4);

Debug.Log(charSelect);

if(charSelect==1)

{


Normalmesh=char1;

HVmesh=HVBoy;

Debug.Log("char1");

}

if(charSelect==2)

{


Normalmesh=char2;

HVmesh=HVGirl;

Debug.Log("char2");

}

if(charSelect==3)

{


Normalmesh=char3;

HVmesh=HVMamil;

Debug.Log("char3");

}

}

voidUpdate()

{

//setautoRotatedirection

_targetRotation=Quaternion.Euler(rotateVector);

if(rotateNumber==0)

{


//cameraFocus.transform.rotation=Quaternion.

RotateTowards(transform.rotation,_targetRotation,turningRate*Time.

deltaTime);


Euler(0,270,0);

}

if(rotateNumber==1)

{

rotateVector=newVector3(0,259.1f,0);


Euler(0,240,0);

}

if(rotateNumber==2)

{


}

if(rotateNumber==3)

{


}

if(rotateNumber==4)

{

rotateVector=newVector3(0,280.9f,

0);

}

//touch stuff

foreach(TouchtouchinInput.touches)

{

if(touch.phase==TouchPhase.Began)

{

fp=touch.position;

lp=touch.position;

//get x co-ord of tap

angle=(touch.position.x/Screen.

width);

}

if(touch.phase==TouchPhase.Moved)

{

lp=touch.position;

}

if(touch.phase==TouchPhase.Ended)

{

//IGNOREUNTIL'MOVEDOWNCODE'

//Firstcheckifit'saswipe

if(Mathf.Abs(lp.x-fp.x)>

dragDistance||Mathf.Abs(lp.y-fp.y)>dragDistance)

{//It'sadrag

//Now check what direction

the drag was

//First check which axis

if(Mathf.Abs(lp.x-fp.x)

>Mathf.Abs(lp.y-fp.y))

{//Ifthehorizontal

movement is greater than the vertical movement...

if(lp.x>fp.x)

//If the movement was to the right

{//Rightmove

//MOVE

RIGHTCODEHERE

moveRight=true;

Invoke("resetMoveRight",0.2f);

}

else

{

{

//Left

move

//MOVE

LEFTCODEHERE

CancelInvoke("raycastFalse");

raycastcheck=true;

Invoke

("raycastFalse",5);

}

GET TOUCH SCREEN COORDS to translate player’s physical taps into virtual world

}

}

else

{ //the vertical movement

isgreaterthanthehorizontalmovement

if(lp.y>fp.y)

//If the movement was up

{ //Up move

//MOVE

UPCODEHERE

if

(hasCollider==true)

{

gameObject.layer=17;

powerdown.SetActive(false);

powerup.SetActive(true);

Normalmesh.SetActive(false);

HVmesh.SetActive(true);

hasCollider=false;

Invoke("resetPowerSound",1);

Debug.Log("can'ttouchthis!");

}

else if

(hasCollider==false)

{

gameObject.layer=9;

hasCollider=true;

powerdown.SetActive(true);

powerup.SetActive(false);

Normalmesh.SetActive(true);

HVmesh.SetActive(false);


Debug.Log("CANtouchthis!");

}

}

else

{//Downmove

//MOVE

DOWNCODEHERE

CancelInvoke("straightAngle");

//angle

=(touch.position.x/Screen.width);

Invoke

("straightAngle",.5f);

speed=

-.8f;

speedCalc=speed;

Debug.

Log("downswipe");

rb.AddRelativeForce(newVector3(0,0,speedCalc*5000*turnLimit),

ForceMode.Impulse);

//

Invoke("forceReset",.05f);

}

}

}

else

{//It'satap

//TAPCODEHERE


//angle=(touch.position.x/Screen.width);

Invoke("straightAngle",.5f);

speed=(touch.position.y/Screen.height);

if(speed>0.285f)

{

speedCalc=1-speed;

}

if(speed>0&&speed<=0.285f)

{ speedCalc=1;

}

if(goingStraight==false)

{if(speedRate>4){

turnLimit=0.2f;

}

elseif(speedRate<4)

{

turnLimit=1;

}

}

rb.AddRelativeForce(newVector3

(0,0,speedCalc*5000*turnLimit),ForceMode.Impulse);

if(canReload==true)

{

Application.

LoadLevel("104debug2");

}

//Invoke("forceReset",

.05f);

}

}

}

//safetapincentreofscreenzone

if((angle>=(0.5f-angleSafe))&&(angle<=(0.5f+

angleSafe)))

{

angleCalc=0;

transform.rotation=Quaternion.RotateTowards

(transform.rotation,_targetRotation,turningRate*Time.deltaTime);

goingStraight=true;

}

elseif((angle<(0.5f-angleSafe))||(angle>(0.5f+

angleSafe)))

{

if(angle>(0.5f+angleSafe))

{

angleCalc=(angle-(0.5f+

angleSafe))/(1-(0.5f+angleSafe));//convertrangefrom0.7to1to0

to1

}

if(angle<(0.5f-angleSafe))

{

angleCalc=-(1-(angle/(0.5f-

angleSafe)));//convertrangefrom0-0.3to-1to0

}

//angleCalc=(angle-0.5f)*2;

goingStraight=false;

}

if(speed==0)

{

speedCalc=0;

}

if(goingStraight==true)

{

turnLimit=1;

}

//tap=newVector3(0,0,(speedCalc*turnLimit));

speedRate=rb.velocity.magnitude;

}

//findsthecorrespondingvisualwheel

// correctly applies the transform

publicvoidApplyLocalPositionToVisuals(WheelCollidercollider)

{

if(collider.transform.childCount==0){

return;

}

TransformvisualWheel=collider.transform.GetChild(0);

Vector3 position;

Quaternion rotation;

collider.GetWorldPose(outposition,outrotation);

visualWheel.transform.position=position;

visualWheel.transform.rotation=rotation;

}

voidFixedUpdate()

{

//handling raycasts toward bikepath

if(raycastcheck==true)

{

RaycastHithit;

RaycastHithit1;

Debug.Log("Conditionforraycastmet");

if(Physics.Raycast(transform.position,

transform.TransformDirection(Vector3.left),outhit,Mathf.Infinity,

bikeTrackLayer))

{

Debug.Log("RayDrawn");

Debug.DrawRay(transform.position,

transform.TransformDirection(Vector3.left)*30f,Color.red);

}


transform.TransformDirection(Vector3.right),outhit1,Mathf.Infinity,

bikeTrackLayer))

{



transform.TransformDirection(Vector3.right)*30f,Color.red);

}

if(hit.collider==true)

{

Debug.Log(hit.point);

speed=10;

floatstep=speed*Time.deltaTime;


transform.position=Vector3.

MoveTowards(transform.position,newVector3(hit.point.x,hit.point.y,hit.

point.z),step);

}

elseif(hit1.collider==true)

{

speed=10;




MoveTowards(transform.position,newVector3(hit1.point.x,hit1.point.y,

hit1.point.z),step);

}

if(hit.point==transform.position||hit1.

point==transform.position)

{

raycastcheck=false;

gameObject.layer=9;

gameObject.GetComponent<Collider>().

enabled=true;

}

}

if(moveRight==true)

SWIPE UP turns on HIGH VIS mode, colliders for traffic layers turned off, letting player move through cars

TAP in the middle of the screen to move player forward, tap left or right sections of screen to rotate front wheel. The further away from the centre of the screen (and closer to the left/right edges of the phone) the tap is, the sharper the player’s turn.

161

}

}

else

{ //the vertical movement

isgreaterthanthehorizontalmovement

if(lp.y>fp.y)

//If the movement was up

{ //Up move

//MOVE

UPCODEHERE

if

(hasCollider==true)

{



powerup.SetActive(true);

Normalmesh.SetActive(false);

HVmesh.SetActive(true);

hasCollider=false;


Debug.Log("can'ttouchthis!");

}

else if

(hasCollider==false)

{

gameObject.layer=9;

hasCollider=true;

powerdown.SetActive(true);


Normalmesh.SetActive(true);

HVmesh.SetActive(false);


Debug.Log("CANtouchthis!");

}

}

else

{//Downmove

//MOVE

DOWNCODEHERE


//angle

=(touch.position.x/Screen.width);

Invoke

("straightAngle",.5f);

speed=

-.8f;

speedCalc=speed;

Debug.

Log("downswipe");

rb.AddRelativeForce(newVector3(0,0,speedCalc*5000*turnLimit),

ForceMode.Impulse);

//

Invoke("forceReset",.05f);

}

}

}

else

{//It'satap

//TAPCODEHERE


//angle=(touch.position.x/Screen.width);

Invoke("straightAngle",.5f);

speed=(touch.position.y/Screen.height);

if(speed>0.285f)

{

speedCalc=1-speed;

}

if(speed>0&&speed<=0.285f)

{ speedCalc=1;

}

if(goingStraight==false)

{if(speedRate>4){

turnLimit=0.2f;

}

elseif(speedRate<4)

{

turnLimit=1;

}

}

rb.AddRelativeForce(newVector3

(0,0,speedCalc*5000*turnLimit),ForceMode.Impulse);

if(canReload==true)

{

Application.

LoadLevel("104debug2");

}

//Invoke("forceReset",

.05f);

}

}

}

//safetapincentreofscreenzone

if((angle>=(0.5f-angleSafe))&&(angle<=(0.5f+

angleSafe)))

{

angleCalc=0;

transform.rotation=Quaternion.RotateTowards

(transform.rotation,_targetRotation,turningRate*Time.deltaTime);

goingStraight=true;

}

elseif((angle<(0.5f-angleSafe))||(angle>(0.5f+

angleSafe)))

{

if(angle>(0.5f+angleSafe))

{

angleCalc=(angle-(0.5f+

angleSafe))/(1-(0.5f+angleSafe));//convertrangefrom0.7to1to0

to1

}

if(angle<(0.5f-angleSafe))

{

angleCalc=-(1-(angle/(0.5f-

angleSafe)));//convertrangefrom0-0.3to-1to0

}

//angleCalc=(angle-0.5f)*2;

goingStraight=false;

}

if(speed==0)

{

speedCalc=0;

}

if(goingStraight==true)

{

turnLimit=1;

}

//tap=newVector3(0,0,(speedCalc*turnLimit));


}

//findsthecorrespondingvisualwheel

// correctly applies the transform

publicvoidApplyLocalPositionToVisuals(WheelCollidercollider)

{

if(collider.transform.childCount==0){

return;

}

TransformvisualWheel=collider.transform.GetChild(0);

Vector3 position;

Quaternion rotation;

collider.GetWorldPose(outposition,outrotation);

visualWheel.transform.position=position;

visualWheel.transform.rotation=rotation;

}

voidFixedUpdate()

{

//handling raycasts toward bikepath

if(raycastcheck==true)

{

RaycastHithit;

RaycastHithit1;

Debug.Log("Conditionforraycastmet");


transform.TransformDirection(Vector3.left),outhit,Mathf.Infinity,

bikeTrackLayer))

{



transform.TransformDirection(Vector3.left)*30f,Color.red);

}


transform.TransformDirection(Vector3.right),outhit1,Mathf.Infinity,

bikeTrackLayer))

{



transform.TransformDirection(Vector3.right)*30f,Color.red);

}

if(hit.collider==true)

{

Debug.Log(hit.point);

speed=10;




MoveTowards(transform.position,newVector3(hit.point.x,hit.point.y,hit.

point.z),step);

}

elseif(hit1.collider==true)

{

speed=10;




MoveTowards(transform.position,newVector3(hit1.point.x,hit1.point.y,

hit1.point.z),step);

}

if(hit.point==transform.position||hit1.

point==transform.position)

{

raycastcheck=false;

gameObject.layer=9;

gameObject.GetComponent<Collider>().

enabled=true;

}

}

if(moveRight==true)

This code is the physics of a tap.

On a bike, a person naturally regulates turning as per their speed to avoid flipping a bike. This code emulates this behavior; ensuring a player doesn’t loose control of the bike at fast speeds.

One a left swip, this code sends out a ray to find the bike lane, then automitically moves the player back to the bike lane.

movement

{

speed=10;


transform.position=Vector3.MoveTowards

(transform.position,newVector3(transform.position.x,transform.position.y,

transform.position.z+1),step);

}

//Examine the touch inputs

//floatmotor=maxMotorTorque*power;

floatsteering=maxSteeringAngle*angleCalc;

//rb.AddRelativeForce(tap*800,ForceMode.Impulse);

foreach(AxleInfoaxleInfoinaxleInfos)

{

if(axleInfo.steering)

{

axleInfo.leftWheel.steerAngle=

steering;

axleInfo.rightWheel.steerAngle=

steering;

}

//if(axleInfo.motor){

//axleInfo.leftWheel.motorTorque=motor;

//axleInfo.rightWheel.motorTorque=motor;

//}

ApplyLocalPositionToVisuals(axleInfo.

leftWheel);


rightWheel);

}

}

voidtapPower()

{

//power=power+powerset;

//print("powersetto"+power);

}

voidstraightAngle()

{

Debug.Log("anglecallcllclclclcl");

angle=0.5f;

}

//voidforceReset()

//{

//

speed=0;

//}

//voidPowerDecelerate()

//{

//foreach(AxleInfoaxleInfoinaxleInfos)

//if(axleInfo.motor&&axleInfo.leftWheel.motorTorque>0&&

axleInfo.rightWheel.motorTorque>0)

//

{

//

axleInfo.leftWheel.brakeTorque=axleInfo.leftWheel.

motorTorque;

//

axleInfo.rightWheel.brakeTorque=axleInfo.rightWheel.

motorTorque;

//}

//

power=0;

//}

//not used

privatevoidSetBlendedEulerAngles(Vector3angles)

{

_targetRotation=Quaternion.Euler(angles);

}

voidOnTriggerEnter(Colliderwin)

{

if(win.GetComponent<Collider>().tag=="winTrigger")

Invoke("canReloadmethod",2);

}

voidOnTriggerStay(ColliderrotateCheck)

{

if(rotateCheck.GetComponent<Collider>().tag==

"straight")

{

rotateNumber=0;

Debug.Log("enterleft");

}

if(rotateCheck.GetComponent<Collider>().tag=="left")

{

rotateNumber=1;


}

if(rotateCheck.GetComponent<Collider>().tag=="left1")

{

rotateNumber=2;


}


{

rotateNumber=3;


}

if(rotateCheck.GetComponent<Collider>().tag=="right")

{

rotateNumber=4;

Debug.Log("enterright");

}

}

voidresetPowerSound()

{



}

voidresetMoveRight()

{

moveRight=false;

}

voidraycastFalse()

{

raycastcheck=false;

}

//voidOnTriggerExit(ColliderrotateCheck)

//{

//if(rotateCheck.GetComponent<Collider>().tag=="left")

//{

//

rotateNumber=0;

//Debug.Log("enterleft");

//}

//if(rotateCheck.GetComponent<Collider>().tag=="right")

//{

//rotateNumber=0;

//Debug.Log("enterright");

//}

//}

voidcanReloadmethod()

{

canReload=true;

}

} [System.Serializable]

public class AxleInfo

{ publicWheelColliderleftWheel;

publicWheelColliderrightWheel;

public bool motor; // is this wheel attached to motor?

public bool steering; // does this wheel apply steer angle?

}

163

{

speed=10;


transform.position=Vector3.MoveTowards

(transform.position,newVector3(transform.position.x,transform.position.y,

transform.position.z+1),step);

}

//Examine the touch inputs

//floatmotor=maxMotorTorque*power;

floatsteering=maxSteeringAngle*angleCalc;

//rb.AddRelativeForce(tap*800,ForceMode.Impulse);

foreach(AxleInfoaxleInfoinaxleInfos)

{

if(axleInfo.steering)

{

axleInfo.leftWheel.steerAngle=

steering;

axleInfo.rightWheel.steerAngle=

steering;

}

//if(axleInfo.motor){

//axleInfo.leftWheel.motorTorque=motor;

//axleInfo.rightWheel.motorTorque=motor;

//}


leftWheel);


rightWheel);

}

}

voidtapPower()

{

//power=power+powerset;

//print("powersetto"+power);

}

voidstraightAngle()

{

Debug.Log("anglecallcllclclclcl");

angle=0.5f;

}

//voidforceReset()

//{

//

speed=0;

//}

//voidPowerDecelerate()

//{

//foreach(AxleInfoaxleInfoinaxleInfos)

//if(axleInfo.motor&&axleInfo.leftWheel.motorTorque>0&&

axleInfo.rightWheel.motorTorque>0)

//

{

//

axleInfo.leftWheel.brakeTorque=axleInfo.leftWheel.

motorTorque;

//

axleInfo.rightWheel.brakeTorque=axleInfo.rightWheel.

motorTorque;

//}

//

power=0;

//}

//not used

privatevoidSetBlendedEulerAngles(Vector3angles)

{

_targetRotation=Quaternion.Euler(angles);

}

voidOnTriggerEnter(Colliderwin)

{

if(win.GetComponent<Collider>().tag=="winTrigger")

Invoke("canReloadmethod",2);

}

voidOnTriggerStay(ColliderrotateCheck)

{

if(rotateCheck.GetComponent<Collider>().tag==

"straight")

{

rotateNumber=0;


}

if(rotateCheck.GetComponent<Collider>().tag=="left")

{

rotateNumber=1;


}


{

rotateNumber=2;


}


{

rotateNumber=3;


}

if(rotateCheck.GetComponent<Collider>().tag=="right")

{

rotateNumber=4;

Debug.Log("enterright");

}

}

voidresetPowerSound()

{



}

voidresetMoveRight()

{

moveRight=false;

}

voidraycastFalse()

{

raycastcheck=false;

}

//voidOnTriggerExit(ColliderrotateCheck)

//{

//if(rotateCheck.GetComponent<Collider>().tag=="left")

//{

//

rotateNumber=0;

//Debug.Log("enterleft");

//}

//if(rotateCheck.GetComponent<Collider>().tag=="right")

//{

//rotateNumber=0;

//Debug.Log("enterright");

//}

//}

voidcanReloadmethod()

{

canReload=true;

}

} [System.Serializable]

public class AxleInfo

{ publicWheelColliderleftWheel;

publicWheelColliderrightWheel;

public bool motor; // is this wheel attached to motor?

public bool steering; // does this wheel apply steer angle?

}

hazardsusing UnityEngine;


public class SpawnInSpace : MonoBehaviour {

publicGameObjectBoundary;

publicObjectnewCar;

publicGameObjectparkedCar;

//parked cars

publicGameObjectparkedCarA;

publicGameObjectparkedCarB;

publicGameObjectparkedCarC;

publicGameObjectparkedCarD;

publicGameObjectparkedCarE;

publicGameObjectparkedCarF;

//double parked cars

publicGameObjecttaxi;

publicGameObjectuber;

//special vehicles

publicGameObjecttruck;

//probabilities

publicintparkedCarRand;//whattypeofcar?

privateintdoubleparkedCarRand;//whattypeofdoubleparkedcar?

publicfloatdoubledistCurb;//doubleparkedkerbsidedistance

publicfloatdistCurb;//parkedkerbsidedistance

publicfloatextradistCurb;//chanceforextrakerbsidedistance

(regularcarparkedpoorly)

privateintextraCarRand;//chanceforextrakerbsidedistance

publicfloatdistCurbMin;

publicfloatdistCurbMax;

publicfloatspaceCoordsx;

publicfloatspaceCoordsy;

publicfloatspaceCoordsz;

publicQuaternionspaceRotation;

public bool isCar;

private int noCar;

//Usethisforinitialization

voidStart(){

isCar=false;

Boundary=GameObject.Find(“Boundary”);

spaceCoordsx=gameObject.transform.position.x;

spaceCoordsy=gameObject.transform.position.y;

spaceCoordsz=gameObject.transform.position.z;

spaceRotation=gameObject.transform.rotation;

//distCurbMin=-0.75f;

//distCurbMax=0.5f;

}

// Update is called once per frame

voidUpdate(){

}

voidOnTriggerEnter(ColliderBoundary)

{

//initial chance for rarer event

if(Boundary.GetComponent<Collider>().tag==

“SpawnRadius”){

noCar=Random.Range(0,10);

//car space is free

if(noCar==0&&isCar==false)

{

isCar=false;

}

//spawn is truck

elseif(noCar==1&&isCar==false)

{

distCurb=(Random.Range

(distCurbMin,distCurbMax))/5;//distancefromkerbside

parkedCar=truck;

newCar=Instantiate(parkedCar,

newVector3(spaceCoordsx,spaceCoordsy,spaceCoordsz+distCurb),

spaceRotation);

isCar=true;

}

//spawn is regular

elseif(noCar>=2)

{

parkedCarRand=Random.Range(2,7);

extraCarRand=Random.Range(0,10);

//then chance for poorly parked car

if(extraCarRand==0)

{

distCurb=Random.Range(2,

3);

}

//carisregular,parkednormally

else

{



}

if(parkedCarRand==1&&isCar==

false){

parkedCar=parkedCarA;

newCar=Instantiate

(parkedCar,newVector3(spaceCoordsx,spaceCoordsy,spaceCoordsz+

distCurb),spaceRotation);

isCar=true;

}elseif(parkedCarRand==2&&

isCar==false){

parkedCar=parkedCarB;

newCar=Instantiate



isCar=true;


isCar==false){

parkedCar=parkedCarC;

newCar=Instantiate



isCar=true;


isCar==false){

parkedCar=parkedCarD;

newCar=Instantiate



isCar=true;

}

elseif(parkedCarRand==5&&isCar

==false){

parkedCar=parkedCarE;

newCar=Instantiate



isCar=true;

}


==false){

parkedCar=parkedCarF;

newCar=Instantiate



isCar=true;

}

//then chance for double parked car

doubleparkedCarRand=Random.Range

(0,14);

if(doubleparkedCarRand==0&&

distCurb<=.6f)//don’tspawndoubleparkedcariskerbdistanceistoobig

{

newCar=Instantiate

(taxi,newVector3(spaceCoordsx,spaceCoordsy,spaceCoordsz+distCurb+

doubledistCurb),spaceRotation);

//Debug.Log(“Double

Park”);

}


distCurb<=.6f)

{

newCar=Instantiate

(uber,newVector3(spaceCoordsx,spaceCoordsy,spaceCoordsz+distCurb+



Park”);

}

//Debug.Log(parkedCarRand);

//Debug.Log(“Entered”);

}

}

}

voidOnTriggerExit(ColliderBoundary)

{


“SpawnRadius”){

if(isCar==true){

DestroyObject(newCar);

isCar=false;

}

Debug.Log(“Exited”);

}

}} using UnityEngine;


publicclassParkedDoor3:MonoBehaviour{

Animator anim;

privateintDoorRand;//if0playanimation

publicboolPlay;//iffalseplayanimation

publicboolDontRepeat;//don’tgetanotherrandomnumberafter

firstRandom.Range(onlyoncechanceforanimation)

publicGameObjectcar;

voidStart()

{

anim=gameObject.GetComponent<Animator>();//get

animator

DontRepeat=false;//iftruenochanceforanimation

}

//attempt at disabling dooring when there is a double parked car

voidOnTiggerEnter(ColliderDoubleParkProtect)

{

if(DoubleParkProtect.GetComponent<Collider>().tag==

“DoorProtect”)

{

DontRepeat=true;

//Debug.Log(“DoubleParkedcardetected”);

}

}

voidOnTriggerEnter(ColliderDoorBoundary)

{

if(DoorBoundary.GetComponent<Collider>().tag==

“DoorRadius”)

{

if(DontRepeat==false)//chanceofdooring

onlywhenDontRepeat=false

{

DoorRand=Random.Range(0,10);

if(DoorRand==0)

{

anim.SetBool(“Play”,false);//

animationplayswhenPlaybooleanisfalse

DontRepeat=true;

}

else

{

anim.SetBool(“Play”,true);

DontRepeat=true;

}

Otherwise, spawning of parked cars is from the ‘regular set’.

Finally, there’s a chance for a double parked vehicle (uber or taxi) to spawn adjacent to the parked vehicle, but only if the parked car is not already egressing into the bike lane.

This spread’s code deals with parked cards. Follow each call out to see how the game generates random stationary hazards for the player.



public class SpawnInSpace : MonoBehaviour {

publicGameObjectBoundary;

publicObjectnewCar;

publicGameObjectparkedCar;

//parked cars

publicGameObjectparkedCarA;

publicGameObjectparkedCarB;

publicGameObjectparkedCarC;

publicGameObjectparkedCarD;

publicGameObjectparkedCarE;

publicGameObjectparkedCarF;

//double parked cars

publicGameObjecttaxi;

publicGameObjectuber;

//special vehicles

publicGameObjecttruck;

//probabilities

publicintparkedCarRand;//whattypeofcar?

privateintdoubleparkedCarRand;//whattypeofdoubleparkedcar?

publicfloatdoubledistCurb;//doubleparkedkerbsidedistance

publicfloatdistCurb;//parkedkerbsidedistance

publicfloatextradistCurb;//chanceforextrakerbsidedistance

(regularcarparkedpoorly)

privateintextraCarRand;//chanceforextrakerbsidedistance

publicfloatdistCurbMin;

publicfloatdistCurbMax;




publicQuaternionspaceRotation;

public bool isCar;

private int noCar;


voidStart(){

isCar=false;

Boundary=GameObject.Find(“Boundary”);




spaceRotation=gameObject.transform.rotation;

//distCurbMin=-0.75f;

//distCurbMax=0.5f;

}


voidUpdate(){

}

voidOnTriggerEnter(ColliderBoundary)

{

//initial chance for rarer event


“SpawnRadius”){

noCar=Random.Range(0,10);

//car space is free

if(noCar==0&&isCar==false)

{

isCar=false;

}

//spawn is truck

elseif(noCar==1&&isCar==false)

{



parkedCar=truck;

newCar=Instantiate(parkedCar,

newVector3(spaceCoordsx,spaceCoordsy,spaceCoordsz+distCurb),

spaceRotation);

isCar=true;

}

//spawn is regular

elseif(noCar>=2)

{

parkedCarRand=Random.Range(2,7);

extraCarRand=Random.Range(0,10);

//then chance for poorly parked car

if(extraCarRand==0)

{

distCurb=Random.Range(2,

3);

}

//carisregular,parkednormally

else

{



}

if(parkedCarRand==1&&isCar==

false){

parkedCar=parkedCarA;

newCar=Instantiate



isCar=true;


isCar==false){

parkedCar=parkedCarB;

newCar=Instantiate



isCar=true;


isCar==false){

parkedCar=parkedCarC;

newCar=Instantiate



isCar=true;


isCar==false){

parkedCar=parkedCarD;

newCar=Instantiate



isCar=true;

}


==false){

parkedCar=parkedCarE;

newCar=Instantiate



isCar=true;

}


==false){

parkedCar=parkedCarF;

newCar=Instantiate



isCar=true;

}

//then chance for double parked car

doubleparkedCarRand=Random.Range

(0,14);


distCurb<=.6f)//don’tspawndoubleparkedcariskerbdistanceistoobig

{

newCar=Instantiate

(taxi,newVector3(spaceCoordsx,spaceCoordsy,spaceCoordsz+distCurb+



Park”);

}


distCurb<=.6f)

{

newCar=Instantiate

(uber,newVector3(spaceCoordsx,spaceCoordsy,spaceCoordsz+distCurb+



Park”);

}

//Debug.Log(parkedCarRand);

//Debug.Log(“Entered”);

}

}

}

voidOnTriggerExit(ColliderBoundary)

{


“SpawnRadius”){

if(isCar==true){

DestroyObject(newCar);

isCar=false;

}

Debug.Log(“Exited”);

}

}} using UnityEngine;


publicclassParkedDoor3:MonoBehaviour{

Animator anim;

privateintDoorRand;//if0playanimation

publicboolPlay;//iffalseplayanimation

publicboolDontRepeat;//don’tgetanotherrandomnumberafter

firstRandom.Range(onlyoncechanceforanimation)

publicGameObjectcar;

voidStart()

{

anim=gameObject.GetComponent<Animator>();//get

animator

DontRepeat=false;//iftruenochanceforanimation

}

//attempt at disabling dooring when there is a double parked car

voidOnTiggerEnter(ColliderDoubleParkProtect)

{

if(DoubleParkProtect.GetComponent<Collider>().tag==

“DoorProtect”)

{

DontRepeat=true;

//Debug.Log(“DoubleParkedcardetected”);

}

}

voidOnTriggerEnter(ColliderDoorBoundary)

{

if(DoorBoundary.GetComponent<Collider>().tag==

“DoorRadius”)

{

if(DontRepeat==false)//chanceofdooring

onlywhenDontRepeat=false

{

DoorRand=Random.Range(0,10);

if(DoorRand==0)

{

anim.SetBool(“Play”,false);//

animationplayswhenPlaybooleanisfalse

DontRepeat=true;

}

else

{

anim.SetBool(“Play”,true);

DontRepeat=true;

}

First there’s a chance for ‘rare’ objects to spawn, such as blank car spaces or oversized trucks and vans

Wh

en a

pla

yer

goes

nea

r a

park

ed c

ar, t

his

cod

e sn

ippe

t is

tri

gger

ed: a

1 in

10

ch

ance

th

at t

he

park

ed

car

will

ope

n it

s do

or

Then there’s a chance for a car to be poorly parked; egressing into bike lane

scoring

When a player leaves the bike lane, bike health ‘multiplier’ decreases by 0.1 every 1.8 seconds.

In the bike lane, bike health increases by .2 every 1.8 seconds.

using UnityEngine;




public class ScoringSystem : MonoBehaviour

{ publicboolonPath;

//publicboolifCyclePath;//isPlayeronbikepath?

//publicGameObjectmeshMultiplier;//originally‘PathWarning’mesh

multiplier factor

publicfloatspawnTime;

publicImagewarningText;//originally‘PathText’,GUI‘getbackon

bikelane’

public Text CountScore; //GUI score

publicGameObjectearnPointob;//GUIpointsparent

publicGameObjectearnPointChild;//childedsoanimationis

relative to player

public Text textMultiplier;

publicObjectpoint;//instantiatedflyingpoint


//instantiatedflyingpointpositions




publicfloatprevPlayerx;

private int pointsEarned; //points earned per tick

private int count; //score

public int multiplier; //multiplier used

privatefloatmultiplierdecimal;

privateGameObjectpieChart;

//private Image pieChartImage;

publicfloatpieChartFill;

publicGameObjectmusicObject;

publicGameObjecthealthSoundObj;

//diagnostics


publicfloatcollisionForce;

publicfloatcollisionImpulse;

public Vector3 collisionNormalVector;

publicTextspeedDisplay;

publicTextcollisionDisplay;

publicTextcollisionImpulseDisplay;

publicTextnormalVectorDisplay;

publicintinjuryRange;

publicRigidbodyrb;

publicboolcanDamage;

publicfloatdotCollision;

publicRigidbodytrigger;

publicGameObjectlifeSound;

public int pickUp;

public Text congrats;

public Text winScore;

public Image pinkScreen;

public Text ridingStyle;

publicGameObjectwinPieUnder;

publicGameObjectwinPieChart;

publicGameObjectwinImageScore;

publicGameObjectwinMultiplierImage;

publicstringinjury;

public string crashType;

public bool winBool;


voidStart()

{


prevTime=Time.time;

winBool=false;


//textMultiplier.SetActive(false);

//textMultiplier.GetComponent<TextMesh>().text=

multiplierdecimal.ToString()+“x”;

//textMultiplier.text=multiplierdecimal.ToString()+

“x”;

textMultiplier.text=multiplierdecimal.ToString();

//meshMultiplier.gameObject.SetActive(false);//hide

multiplier mesh

warningText.gameObject.SetActive(false);//hideGUIget

back to bike lane

//pieChart.GetComponent<Image>().FillAmount=

multiplierdecimal;

count=0;//scoreis0

multiplier=10;

pointsEarned=10;

SetCountScore();//Setthescorefunction

SetMultiplier();//Setthemultiplierfunction

prevPlayerx=spaceCoordsx;//statingthatplayerhas

travelledxmetressincethisposition,atbeginningofgameiszero

speedDisplay.text=“0”;

canDamage=true;

pieChart=GameObject.Find(“FillingObject”);

}


voidUpdate()

{





if(prevTime<=Time.time-1.8f)//eventseverysecond

{

//Debug.Log(prevTime);

prevTime=Time.time;

speedDisplay.text=speedRate.ToString(“0.0”);

if(onPath==true)

{

if(multiplier<10)

{

multiplier=multiplier+2;//set

multiplier

}

else

{

multiplier=10;

}

}

if(onPath==false)

{

if(multiplier>0)

{

multiplier=multiplier-1;//set

multiplier

}

else

{

multiplier=0;

}

}

multiplierTasks();

}

if(onPath==true)//eventsonbikepath

{

//InvokeRepeating(“addMultiplier”,1,1);

//meshMultiplier.gameObject.SetActive(false);

//hide multiplier mesh

warningText.gameObject.SetActive(false);//

hide GUI get back to bike lane

}

if(onPath==false)//eventsoffbikepath

{

//InvokeRepeating(“minusMultiplier”,1,20);

//meshMultiplier.gameObject.SetActive(true);

//show multiplier mesh

warningText.gameObject.SetActive(true);//hide

GUI get back to bike lane

}

if(spaceCoordsx<prevPlayerx-40)//eventsevery10steps

{

spawnPoint();

pointsEarned=1*multiplier;//calculate

points earned

count=count+pointsEarned;//calculatescore

SetMultiplier();//displaypointsearned

SetCountScore();//displayscore

prevPlayerx=spaceCoordsx;

}

}

//detect leaving bike lane

voidOnTriggerEnter(ColliderScoreTrigger)

{

if((ScoreTrigger.GetComponent<Collider>().tag==

“TrafficCar”)&&canDamage==true)

{

Debug.Log(“TRIGGERCOLLIDE!!”);

if(speedRate>10)

{

if(multiplier-1>=0)

{

multiplier=multiplier;

}

if(multiplier-1<0)

{

multiplier=0;

}

if(count-30>=0)

{

pointsEarned=-30;//

calculate points earned

}

if(count-30<0)

{

pointsEarned=-count;//


}

}

if(speedRate>5&&dotCollision<=10)

{

if(multiplier-1>=0)

{


}





public class ScoringSystem : MonoBehaviour

{ publicboolonPath;

//publicboolifCyclePath;//isPlayeronbikepath?

//publicGameObjectmeshMultiplier;//originally‘PathWarning’mesh

multiplier factor

publicfloatspawnTime;

publicImagewarningText;//originally‘PathText’,GUI‘getbackon

bikelane’

public Text CountScore; //GUI score

publicGameObjectearnPointob;//GUIpointsparent

publicGameObjectearnPointChild;//childedsoanimationis

relative to player

public Text textMultiplier;

publicObjectpoint;//instantiatedflyingpoint


//instantiatedflyingpointpositions




publicfloatprevPlayerx;

private int pointsEarned; //points earned per tick

private int count; //score

public int multiplier; //multiplier used

privatefloatmultiplierdecimal;

privateGameObjectpieChart;

//private Image pieChartImage;

publicfloatpieChartFill;

publicGameObjectmusicObject;

publicGameObjecthealthSoundObj;

//diagnostics


publicfloatcollisionForce;

publicfloatcollisionImpulse;

public Vector3 collisionNormalVector;

publicTextspeedDisplay;

publicTextcollisionDisplay;

publicTextcollisionImpulseDisplay;

publicTextnormalVectorDisplay;

publicintinjuryRange;

publicRigidbodyrb;

publicboolcanDamage;

publicfloatdotCollision;

publicRigidbodytrigger;

publicGameObjectlifeSound;

public int pickUp;

public Text congrats;

public Text winScore;

public Image pinkScreen;

public Text ridingStyle;

publicGameObjectwinPieUnder;

publicGameObjectwinPieChart;

publicGameObjectwinImageScore;

publicGameObjectwinMultiplierImage;

publicstringinjury;

public string crashType;

public bool winBool;


voidStart()

{


prevTime=Time.time;

winBool=false;


//textMultiplier.SetActive(false);

//textMultiplier.GetComponent<TextMesh>().text=

multiplierdecimal.ToString()+“x”;

//textMultiplier.text=multiplierdecimal.ToString()+

“x”;

textMultiplier.text=multiplierdecimal.ToString();

//meshMultiplier.gameObject.SetActive(false);//hide

multiplier mesh

warningText.gameObject.SetActive(false);//hideGUIget

back to bike lane

//pieChart.GetComponent<Image>().FillAmount=

multiplierdecimal;

count=0;//scoreis0

multiplier=10;

pointsEarned=10;

SetCountScore();//Setthescorefunction

SetMultiplier();//Setthemultiplierfunction

prevPlayerx=spaceCoordsx;//statingthatplayerhas

travelledxmetressincethisposition,atbeginningofgameiszero

speedDisplay.text=“0”;

canDamage=true;

pieChart=GameObject.Find(“FillingObject”);

}


voidUpdate()

{





if(prevTime<=Time.time-1.8f)//eventseverysecond

{

//Debug.Log(prevTime);

prevTime=Time.time;

speedDisplay.text=speedRate.ToString(“0.0”);

if(onPath==true)

{

if(multiplier<10)

{

multiplier=multiplier+2;//set

multiplier

}

else

{

multiplier=10;

}

}

if(onPath==false)

{

if(multiplier>0)

{

multiplier=multiplier-1;//set

multiplier

}

else

{

multiplier=0;

}

}

multiplierTasks();

}

if(onPath==true)//eventsonbikepath

{

//InvokeRepeating(“addMultiplier”,1,1);

//meshMultiplier.gameObject.SetActive(false);

//hide multiplier mesh

warningText.gameObject.SetActive(false);//

hide GUI get back to bike lane

}

if(onPath==false)//eventsoffbikepath

{

//InvokeRepeating(“minusMultiplier”,1,20);

//meshMultiplier.gameObject.SetActive(true);

//show multiplier mesh

warningText.gameObject.SetActive(true);//hide

GUI get back to bike lane

}

if(spaceCoordsx<prevPlayerx-40)//eventsevery10steps

{

spawnPoint();

pointsEarned=1*multiplier;//calculate

points earned




prevPlayerx=spaceCoordsx;

}

}

//detect leaving bike lane

voidOnTriggerEnter(ColliderScoreTrigger)

{

if((ScoreTrigger.GetComponent<Collider>().tag==

“TrafficCar”)&&canDamage==true)

{

Debug.Log(“TRIGGERCOLLIDE!!”);

if(speedRate>10)

{

if(multiplier-1>=0)

{


}

if(multiplier-1<0)

{

multiplier=0;

}

if(count-30>=0)

{

pointsEarned=-30;//


}

if(count-30<0)

{



}

}


{

if(multiplier-1>=0)

{


}

On collusion with a vehicle, the larger the force of impact, the more points and the bike health ‘multiplier’ are reduced.

Every 40 units, a player gains points. Points are calculated based on the bike health ‘multiplier’: 1 meaning full bike health.

If multiplier = 1, player earns 10 points that tick. If multiplier = 0.5, player earns 5 points.

scoring

if(multiplier-1<0)

{

multiplier=0;

}

if(count-20>=0)

{

pointsEarned=-20;//


}

if(count-20<0)

{



}

}


{

if(multiplier-1>=0)

{


}

if(multiplier-1<0)

{

multiplier=0;

}

if(count-10>=0)

{

pointsEarned=-10;//


}

if(count-10<0)

{



}

}




spawnPoint();

//if(multiplierdecimal==0)

//{

//Application.LoadLevel(“104debug

2”);

//}

canDamage=false;

Invoke(“cancelcanDamage”,2);

}

if(ScoreTrigger.GetComponent<Collider>().tag==

“winTrigger”)

{

Debug.Log(“Youwin!”);

youWin();

}

if(ScoreTrigger.gameObject.CompareTag(“pickUp”))

{

ScoreTrigger.gameObject.SetActive(false);

lifeSound.gameObject.SetActive(true);

multiplier=10;


showMultipler();

pointsEarned=20;

pickUp=pickUp+1;



spawnPoint();

multiplierTasks();

Invoke(“resetlifeSound”,1);

}

}

voidOnTriggerStay(ColliderBikePathCollider)

{

if(BikePathCollider.GetComponent<Collider>().tag==

“BikePath”)

{

onPath=true;

//Invoke(“destroyPoint”,1);

}

}

//detect entering bike lane

voidOnTriggerExit(ColliderBikePathCollider)

{


“BikePath”)

{

onPath=false;

//Debug.Log(“Offbikelane”);


}

}

voidOnCollisionEnter(Collisioncollision)

{

Debug.Log(collision.relativeVelocity.magnitude+

“COLLIDE”);

foreach(ContactPointcontactincollision.contacts)

{

Vector3normal=contact.normal;

Vector3velocity=collision.relativeVelocity;

dotCollision=Vector3.Dot(normal,velocity);

print(contact.thisCollider.name+“hit“+

contact.otherCollider.name);

Debug.DrawRay(contact.point,contact.normal,

Color.white);

Debug.Log(“massesare”+collision.rigidbody.

mass+rb.mass+“normalanglesare”+contact.normal);

collisionNormalVector=contact.normal;

normalVectorDisplay.text=

collisionNormalVector.ToString();

//Debug.Log(“CollisionImpulseis”+Collision.

impulse)

}

CancelInvoke(“clearAnalytics”);

collisionForce=dotCollision;

collisionImpulse=collision.impulse.magnitude;

collisionDisplay.text=collisionForce.ToString(“0.0”);

collisionImpulseDisplay.text=“Im“+collisionImpulse.

ToString(“0.0”);

if((collision.rigidbody.tag==“TrafficCar”)&&canDamage

==true)

{

Debug.Log(“Collidewithtraffic!”);

if(dotCollision>20)

{

if(multiplier-7>=0)

{

multiplier=multiplier-

7;

}

if(multiplier-7<0)

{

multiplier=0;

}

if(count-50>=0)

{

pointsEarned=-50;//


}

if(count-50<0)

{



}

}

if(dotCollision>10&&dotCollision<=20)

{

if(multiplier-7>=0)

{


7;

}

if(multiplier-7<0)

{

multiplier=0;

}

if(count-40>=0)

{

pointsEarned=-40;//


}

if(count-40<0)

{



}

}


{

if(multiplier-3>=0)

{


3;

}

if(multiplier-3<0)

{

multiplier=0;

}

if(count-20>=0)

{

pointsEarned=-20;//


}

if(count-20<0)

{



}

}

if(dotCollision>0&&dotCollision<5)

{

if(multiplier-1>=0)

{


1;

}

if(multiplier-1<0)

If bike health = 0, it is gameover

169

if(multiplier-1<0)

{

multiplier=0;

}

if(count-20>=0)

{

pointsEarned=-20;//


}

if(count-20<0)

{



}

}


{

if(multiplier-1>=0)

{


}

if(multiplier-1<0)

{

multiplier=0;

}

if(count-10>=0)

{

pointsEarned=-10;//


}

if(count-10<0)

{



}

}




spawnPoint();

//if(multiplierdecimal==0)

//{


2”);

//}

canDamage=false;


}

if(ScoreTrigger.GetComponent<Collider>().tag==

“winTrigger”)

{

Debug.Log(“Youwin!”);

youWin();

}

if(ScoreTrigger.gameObject.CompareTag(“pickUp”))

{

ScoreTrigger.gameObject.SetActive(false);

lifeSound.gameObject.SetActive(true);

multiplier=10;


showMultipler();

pointsEarned=20;

pickUp=pickUp+1;



spawnPoint();

multiplierTasks();

Invoke(“resetlifeSound”,1);

}

}

voidOnTriggerStay(ColliderBikePathCollider)

{


“BikePath”)

{

onPath=true;


}

}

//detect entering bike lane

voidOnTriggerExit(ColliderBikePathCollider)

{


“BikePath”)

{

onPath=false;

//Debug.Log(“Offbikelane”);


}

}

voidOnCollisionEnter(Collisioncollision)

{

Debug.Log(collision.relativeVelocity.magnitude+

“COLLIDE”);

foreach(ContactPointcontactincollision.contacts)

{

Vector3normal=contact.normal;

Vector3velocity=collision.relativeVelocity;

dotCollision=Vector3.Dot(normal,velocity);

print(contact.thisCollider.name+“hit“+

contact.otherCollider.name);

Debug.DrawRay(contact.point,contact.normal,

Color.white);

Debug.Log(“massesare”+collision.rigidbody.

mass+rb.mass+“normalanglesare”+contact.normal);

collisionNormalVector=contact.normal;

normalVectorDisplay.text=

collisionNormalVector.ToString();

//Debug.Log(“CollisionImpulseis”+Collision.

impulse)

}

CancelInvoke(“clearAnalytics”);

collisionForce=dotCollision;

collisionImpulse=collision.impulse.magnitude;

collisionDisplay.text=collisionForce.ToString(“0.0”);

collisionImpulseDisplay.text=“Im“+collisionImpulse.

ToString(“0.0”);

if((collision.rigidbody.tag==“TrafficCar”)&&canDamage

==true)

{

Debug.Log(“Collidewithtraffic!”);

if(dotCollision>20)

{

if(multiplier-7>=0)

{


7;

}

if(multiplier-7<0)

{

multiplier=0;

}

if(count-50>=0)

{

pointsEarned=-50;//


}

if(count-50<0)

{



}

}


{

if(multiplier-7>=0)

{


7;

}

if(multiplier-7<0)

{

multiplier=0;

}

if(count-40>=0)

{

pointsEarned=-40;//


}

if(count-40<0)

{



}

}


{

if(multiplier-3>=0)

{


3;

}

if(multiplier-3<0)

{

multiplier=0;

}

if(count-20>=0)

{

pointsEarned=-20;//


}

if(count-20<0)

{



}

}

if(dotCollision>0&&dotCollision<5)

{

if(multiplier-1>=0)

{


1;

}

if(multiplier-1<0)

Running over a bike box returns a player’s bike health to full, and gives a rider 20 points

scoring

{

multiplier=0;

}

if(count-10>=0)

{

pointsEarned=-10;//


}

if(count-10<0)

{



}

}




spawnPoint();

multiplierTasks();

if(multiplierdecimal==0)

{

youCrash();


2”);

}

}

Invoke(“clearAnalytics”,5);

canDamage=false;


//if(collision.relativeVelocity.magnitude>10)

//{

//Debug.Log(“Bigcollision!”);

//}

}

voidSetCountScore()//DisplayGUIscore

{

CountScore.text=count.ToString();

}

voidspawnPoint()//Spawnflyingpoint

{

spawnTime=Time.time;

point=Instantiate(earnPointob,newVector3

(spaceCoordsx,spaceCoordsy,spaceCoordsz),Quaternion.AngleAxis(270,

Vector3.up))asGameObject;

Destroy(point,1);

}

voidSetMultiplier()//setflyingpointvalue

{

earnPointChild.GetComponent<TextMesh>().text=

pointsEarned.ToString();//multiplier.ToString();

}

voidshowMultipler()

{

//if(multiplier==10)

//{

//

textMultiplier.SetActive(false);

//}

//else

//{

//textMultiplier.SetActive(true);

multiplierdecimal=(float)multiplier/10;

//textMultiplier.GetComponent<TextMesh>().text

=multiplierdecimal.ToString()+“x”;

textMultiplier.text=multiplierdecimal.

ToString()+“x”;

//}

}

//collisions stuff

voidclearAnalytics()

{

collisionDisplay.text=(““);

collisionImpulseDisplay.text=(““);

normalVectorDisplay.text=(““);

}

voidcancelcanDamage()

{

canDamage=true;

}

voidyouWin()

{

if(winBool==false)

{

pinkScreen.gameObject.SetActive(true);

congrats.text=“YOUMADEITTOTHECITY!”;

winScore.text=“RAWSCORE“+count.ToString

();

if(pickUp==0)

{

ridingStyle.text=“RIDINGSTYLE:

LOUSY!”;

}

if(pickUp>=1&&pickUp<=3)

{


OK!”;

}

if(pickUp>3)

{


GREAT!”;

}

Invoke(“resetLevel”,10);

}

winPieUnder.SetActive(false);

winPieChart.SetActive(false);

winImageScore.SetActive(false);

warningText.gameObject.SetActive(false);

winBool=true;

}

voidyouCrash()

{


if(winBool==false)

{


();

if(collisionNormalVector.x>.1f)

{

crashType=“FRONTALSMASH!”;

}

if(collisionNormalVector.x<=-.1f)

{

crashType=“beenhitfrombehind!”;

}

if(collisionNormalVector.z>.3f||

collisionNormalVector.z<-.3f)

{

crashType=“gottensideswiped!”;

}

injuryRange=Random.Range(0,3);

if(dotCollision<1)

{

injury=“JUSTASCRAPE!”;

}

congrats.text=“OUCH!“+crashType;

if(speedRate>=1&&speedRate<=5)

{

if(injuryRange==0);

{

injury=“ALIGHTSCRAPE!”;

}

if(injuryRange==1);

{

injury=“ABROKENBIKE!”;

}

if(injuryRange==2);

{

injury=“ABROKEN

MIRROR!”;

}

}

if(dotCollision>=1&&dotCollision<=10)

{

if(injuryRange==0);

{

injury=“ABROKENARM!”;

}

if(injuryRange==1);

{

injury=“ABROKENLEG!”;

}

if(injuryRange==2);

{

injury=“ABROKENTOE!”;

}

}

if(dotCollision>10)

{

if(injuryRange==0);

{

injury=“ABROKENNECK”;

}

if(injuryRange==1);

{

injury=“AWRECKEDBIKE!”;

}

if(injuryRange==2);

{

injury=“ASADFAMILY!!!”;

}

}

ridingStyle.text=“Youendedupwith...“+

injury;


}

171

{

multiplier=0;

}

if(count-10>=0)

{

pointsEarned=-10;//


}

if(count-10<0)

{



}

}




spawnPoint();

multiplierTasks();

if(multiplierdecimal==0)

{

youCrash();


2”);

}

}

Invoke(“clearAnalytics”,5);

canDamage=false;


//if(collision.relativeVelocity.magnitude>10)

//{

//Debug.Log(“Bigcollision!”);

//}

}

voidSetCountScore()//DisplayGUIscore

{

CountScore.text=count.ToString();

}

voidspawnPoint()//Spawnflyingpoint

{

spawnTime=Time.time;

point=Instantiate(earnPointob,newVector3

(spaceCoordsx,spaceCoordsy,spaceCoordsz),Quaternion.AngleAxis(270,

Vector3.up))asGameObject;

Destroy(point,1);

}

voidSetMultiplier()//setflyingpointvalue

{

earnPointChild.GetComponent<TextMesh>().text=

pointsEarned.ToString();//multiplier.ToString();

}

voidshowMultipler()

{

//if(multiplier==10)

//{

//

textMultiplier.SetActive(false);

//}

//else

//{

//textMultiplier.SetActive(true);

multiplierdecimal=(float)multiplier/10;

//textMultiplier.GetComponent<TextMesh>().text

=multiplierdecimal.ToString()+“x”;

textMultiplier.text=multiplierdecimal.

ToString()+“x”;

//}

}

//collisions stuff

voidclearAnalytics()

{

collisionDisplay.text=(““);

collisionImpulseDisplay.text=(““);

normalVectorDisplay.text=(““);

}

voidcancelcanDamage()

{

canDamage=true;

}

voidyouWin()

{

if(winBool==false)

{


congrats.text=“YOUMADEITTOTHECITY!”;


();

if(pickUp==0)

{


LOUSY!”;

}

if(pickUp>=1&&pickUp<=3)

{


OK!”;

}

if(pickUp>3)

{


GREAT!”;

}


}

winPieUnder.SetActive(false);

winPieChart.SetActive(false);

winImageScore.SetActive(false);

warningText.gameObject.SetActive(false);

winBool=true;

}

voidyouCrash()

{


if(winBool==false)

{


();

if(collisionNormalVector.x>.1f)

{

crashType=“FRONTALSMASH!”;

}

if(collisionNormalVector.x<=-.1f)

{

crashType=“beenhitfrombehind!”;

}

if(collisionNormalVector.z>.3f||

collisionNormalVector.z<-.3f)

{

crashType=“gottensideswiped!”;

}

injuryRange=Random.Range(0,3);

if(dotCollision<1)

{

injury=“JUSTASCRAPE!”;

}

congrats.text=“OUCH!“+crashType;

if(speedRate>=1&&speedRate<=5)

{

if(injuryRange==0);

{

injury=“ALIGHTSCRAPE!”;

}

if(injuryRange==1);

{

injury=“ABROKENBIKE!”;

}

if(injuryRange==2);

{

injury=“ABROKEN

MIRROR!”;

}

}

if(dotCollision>=1&&dotCollision<=10)

{

if(injuryRange==0);

{

injury=“ABROKENARM!”;

}

if(injuryRange==1);

{

injury=“ABROKENLEG!”;

}

if(injuryRange==2);

{

injury=“ABROKENTOE!”;

}

}

if(dotCollision>10)

{

if(injuryRange==0);

{

injury=“ABROKENNECK”;

}

if(injuryRange==1);

{

injury=“AWRECKEDBIKE!”;

}

if(injuryRange==2);

{

injury=“ASADFAMILY!!!”;

}

}

ridingStyle.text=“Youendedupwith...“+

injury;


}

4

WORK SHOP

4 Pocket Pedal WorkshopThe culmination of this thesis involved running a codesign workshop amongst stakeholders impacted by cycling on St Kilda Road.

In Section 1, cycling was established as an ecology of fast and complex elements involving many opposing stakeholders. Section 2 identified codesign strategies to manage such environments, namely creating common frames for exploration. In Section 3, the design of the playful cycling simulation Pocket Pedal was described. Pocket Pedal and several lower fidelity simulations were designed as artefacts to be embedded in codesign for productive metagame creation.

In the Pocket Pedal workshop, these artefacts were situated and tested to see if games could amplify the codesign process, namely helping stakeholders (and designers) explore the ecology of cycling.

177

StakeholdersParticipants were diverse, coming from many backgrounds with different understandings of cycling. Stakeholders included cyclists, drivers, transit users, a planner from the local council and two health professionals (a trauma surgeon working at The Alfred, a nearby hospital, and a radiologist).

Workshop Outline:To test the use of metagame and embeddable game artefacts, workshop codesign activities trialled Pocket Pedal in various levels of ‘completeness’. Some activities situated the game as a stand-alone, discrete artefact that was ‘run’ through cardboard-based games..Others broke the game down into elements and augmented these with lower fidelity props and activities. Later workshop activities situated participants outside the simulation and encouraged them to critique it and develop new ideas.

Inserting Pocket Pedal in workshop activities had the higher goal of making a collaborative, engaged environment for discussion and idea generation. Such discussion is expected to bleed through discrete workshop activities. Recognising this, the entire workshop was filmed so these spontaneous reactions, debates and ideas can be captured and used.

Activity 1: Backwards Interview Game(minimal use of artefacts, minimal use of Pocket Pedal)

HI FIDLITY ARTEFACTS: Images of virtual world LOW FIDELITY ARTEFACTS: Paper scoring cards GAME ELEMENTS USED: Competition

The Backwards Interview Game attempted to develop a shared design frame (Refer Section 2.1) in workshop participants. That is, recognition that urban cycling involves stakeholders from many backgrounds (namely cyclists, motorists and transit users). Participants were exposed to a shared ‘site’ through images of the Pocket Pedal game.

The ‘game’ was broken into three activities: scene identification (Activity 1A), stakeholder identification (Activity 1B), and the Backwards Interview Game itself (Activity 1C).

179

PRINCESS BRIDGE

NGVNORTH

NGV SOUTH

KINGS WAY BYPASS

THE MELBOURNIAN

DOMAIN INTERCHANGE

VICTORIA BARRACKS

ARTS CENTRE

181

Activity 1A Scene IdentificationRESEARCH QUESTIONS:

Is the virtual environment created in Pocket Pedal recognisable as the St Kilda Road cycling environment?

Can scoring as a tool for cross-stakeholder engagement?

AIMS• Ease participants into active participation

• See how recognisable game simulation is to the real world

PROPS: Laptop, postcard images of key areas of virtual world

METHODPostcard images of virtual cycling environment shown to participants.

Participants must locate each postcard in the real world. After all postcards

have been shown, correct locations are read out. Participants receive one

point per correct location.

DATAOff the cuff comments:We won’t have you on our trivial pursuit teamIs that an animal in the background? That pink thing? [my response: No, they are trees] What are those pink things – trees? They look like roses on this side – they’re pretty.Ah, I know what it is – the Melbournian! [response: of course!]Spirit of cooperationWhat’s the box on the head? Ned Kelly?Cute designs[me: for scale a person is this high] respondent: ah, I know!

183

185

DISCUSSIONParticipant recognition of the ‘gamified’ route was accurate, with correct identification of locations occurring around 70% of the time.

Unanticipated was the emergent collaborative nature of the exercise:

participants wanted to group together and collectively identify each scene.

Skyline icons such as the Arts Spire and the Flinder’s Street Station dome were most effective at conveying place, more so than infrastructure features

such as the idiosyncratic lane changes associated with the route. Less well known landmarks such as the Melbournian and the Barracks still proved

recognisable. Scale was an issue, with some participants unsure how large

virtual objects were.

Participants enjoyed the challenge of working out each postcard. Awarding

points meant participants had a vested interested in identifying scenes, even

though these points were completely arbitrary and not used gain. Unlike

the immediacy of a photograph, the reduced, stylised virtual representation

forced participants to assess each part of the scene for clues, eventually

leading to a scene’s identification.

The activity was effective method for introducing the virtual cycling

environment and prompting individuals to become active participants in

workshop activities.

187

Why

did

you

pu

t you

rsel

f in

this

cat

egor

y?

Why

did

you

pu

t you

rsel

f in

this

cat

egor

y?

Are

you

happ

y be

ing

desc

ribed

like

th

is?

An

ythi

ng

mis

sing

?

How

fr

eque

ntly

do

you

go u

p St

K

ilda

Roa

d?

Hav

e yo

u pa

rtic

ipat

ed

in a

des

ign

wor

ksho

p be

fore

?

comPLETE

BuLLSHIT

IT’S

PRETTy

ACCUrAte!

dRIV

Ing

cycLIn

gPuBLIc

TRanSPoRT

namE

ALmoST

EVERyDay

ALmoST

EVERy wEEK

everY

MONth

eVERy

yEaR

EmaIL

DRIV

ER /

cycLIS

T /

oTHER

The

thin

g I

mos

t enj

oy

bein

g on

the

road

is...

The

thin

g I

mos

t enj

oy

bein

g on

the

road

is...

Whe

n I’m

on

the

road

, I’m

m

ost w

orrie

d ab

out..

.

Thin

gs th

at

don’

t mak

e se

nse

on th

e ro

ad a

re...

I wis

h th

ere

was

mor

e...

pOiN

ts here

ACtiv

itY 1.3

Why

did

you

pu

t you

rsel

f in

this

cat

egor

y?

Why

did

you

pu

t you

rsel

f in

this

cat

egor

y?

Are

you

happ

y be

ing

desc

ribed

like

th

is?

An

ythi

ng

mis

sing

?

How

fr

eque

ntly

do

you

go u

p St

K

ilda

Roa

d?

Hav

e yo

u pa

rtic

ipat

ed

in a

des

ign

wor

ksho

p be

fore

?

comPLETE

BuLLSHIT

IT’S

PRETTy

ACCUrAte!

dRIV

Ing

cycLIn

gPuBLIc

TRanSPoRT

namE

ALmoST

EVERyDay

ALmoST

EVERy wEEK

everY

MONth

eVERy

yEaR

EmaIL

DRIV

ER /

cycLIS

T /

oTHER

The

thin

g I

mos

t enj

oy

bein

g on

the

road

is...

The

thin

g I

mos

t enj

oy

bein

g on

the

road

is...

Whe

n I’m

on

the

road

, I’m

m

ost w

orrie

d ab

out..

.

Thin

gs th

at

don’

t mak

e se

nse

on th

e ro

ad a

re...

I wis

h th

ere

was

mor

e...

pOiN

ts here

ACtiv

itY 1.3

ALM

OS

T EV

ERY

DAY

ALM

OS

T EV

ERY

WEE

KA

LMO

ST

EVER

Y M

ON

THLE

SS

TH

EN E

VER

Y M

ON

TH

CC

C

CCCDD

DDDD

D

PT

PT

HOW OFTEN DO YOU TRAVEL

UP ST KILDA ROAD

C CYCLE

D DRIV

EPT PUBLIC

TRANSIT

PT

Activity 1B Stakeholder identificationRESEARCH QUESTION:

What are the habitual opinions and preconceptions amongst people linked to the issue of cycling?

AIMS• Explore background experiences that participants are bringing to the

workshop

• Create a baseline profile of participants to calibrate effect of workshop design activities.

METHOD• Participants asked to identify themselves as cyclist, driver or other by

sticking coloured post-it note ‘badges’ on themselves

• Participants are asked a series of questions regarding their background, familiarity with St Kilda Road, conception of road-space and activism.

DATAOff-the-cuff comments:Can you be both?I’m probably other as wellWhat if you’re both?My current role? Cyclist or other?

Survey question: ‘Why did you choose this category?’‘I’m just a person going places’ ‘Living on St Kilda Road, PT = faster, drive = weekends’ ‘I use all modes, but would cycle more if I was more confident in my safe-ty.’ ‘Ride bike often, drive sometimes, catch tram often.’ ‘Ride to uni 3 times a week and do not own a car’

DISCUSSIONParticipation was evenly distributed between more cycling and more motorist

individuals. Workshop members came from a diverse set of backgrounds,

including health, planning and activism, and included both younger and older

participants. Some participants had experience in video games, most did not.

All participants bar one felt uncomfortable associating themselves as a single

‘type’. Issues of legitimacy (not being a ‘real cyclist’) and the multi-modal

nature of an individual’s travel were raised. Instead, participants chose

multiple badges to reflect their identity, taking multiple same coloured post-its when one stakeholder group was more strongly part of their identity.

The feeling of freedom (and breezes and sunshine)

Getting to see the day and experience the weather

Speed, security, going at your own pace

Non congested, scenic drives, [short] time it takes to get to desti-

nation

Not getting killed or injured, arriving at my destination

Cyclists, road safety, impatient drivers.

car dooring.

Dooring by cars when in the bike lane

q1

q2

The feeling of freedom (and breezes and sunshine)

Getting to see the day and experience the weather

Speed, security, going at your own pace

Non congested, scenic drives, [short] time it takes to get to desti-

nation

Not getting killed or injured, arriving at my destination

Cyclists, road safety, impatient drivers.

car dooring.

Dooring by cars when in the bike lane

q1

q2

Dri

ver

/ Oth

er /

Oth

er

[Nir

o]

Dri

ver

/ Oth

er

[Nad

hik

a]

Dri

ver

/ Oth

er

[Pet

er]

Dri

ver

/ Cyc

list

[J

ohn

C]

Dri

ver

[D

anie

lle]

Cyc

list

[A

lexa

]

Cyc

list

/ Oth

er

[Joh

n B

]

Cyc

list

/ Oth

er

[Fre

da]

Cyc

list

/ Oth

er

[Pie

tra]

Oth

er /

Oth

er /

Cyc

list

[Sam

]

DRIVER CYCLIST OTHER

Activity 1C Backwards Interview GameRESEARCH QUESTION:Is there a knowledge gap between people linked to the issue of cycling?

AIMS· Investigate if part of problem with urban cycling is the lack of interaction

between stakeholders

· Assess cross stakeholder knowledge / empathy

METHOD· Individuals form pairs of differing stakeholders. Pairs record a ‘backwards

interview,’ where Participant A (being filmed) must guess Participant B’s (filming) answers to the previous questionnaire based on their stakehold-

er identification.o The thing I like most about being on the road is...

o On the road I’m most worried about…o On the road the things that don’t make sense are… o I wish there was more…

· Participant B awards Participant A one point per correct answer.

DATA

DISCUSSIONThe shared frame of the Backwards Interview Game was effective at ‘breaking

the ice’ amongst participants, giving them confidence to ask questions and engage in conversation. This meant further workshop activities were

done in a group that were familiar with each other, rather than as a group of

unintroduced strangers.

The backwards nature of the interview (participants were not answering

questions themselves, but rather guessing the answers of their partner) encouraged back-and-forth conversation and collaboration. Participant

A would guess Participant B’s answer to a particular question, prompting Participant B to give a hint, which would then lead A to modify her answer.

The novelty of the activity, and this continual updating of responses, kept

conversation engaging rather than being stilted, as what happens in many

breaking-the-ice-through-interview participatory games.

Scoring ‘points’ gave both participants (interviewer and interviewee) defined but informal roles, encouraging participants to focus on the activity at hand.

Comparing interview ‘scores’ in a wider workshop discussion at the end of

the activity was a quick and effective method for sharing and discussing these one-on-one interviews with the entire workshop group.

SCORES

3.5 / 43 / 4

3 / 42.5 / 4

3.5 / 4 1.5 /4

193

Activity 2: Journey Game(low fidelity artefacts, minimal use of Pocket Pedal)

HIGH FIDELITY ARTIFACTS: --- LOW FIDLIETY ARTIFACTS: Setting, Character and Moment cards GAME ELEMENTS USED: Rules, Outcomes

The Journey Game was the first activity to test if simulation can be used productively in cycling stakeholders. The cardboard simulation was low-fidelity, flexible and non-immersive.

The game aimed to facilitate participants in collectively exploring cycling conditions and expose them to infrastructural precedents (refer Section 2.2). Cycling was broken down into a series of cardboard props (Setting, Character and Moment cards), from which participants construct cycling journeys.

Before playing the Journey Game, participants were exposed to a conventional method of cycling analysis: GoPro cycling footage of St Kilda road. Analysis of this footage was compared to outcomes generated through participant interaction with the cardboard simulation.

195

Activity 2A: Codesign with traditional Go Pro footage RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Can traditional forms of activism be productively used in codesign situations?

How productive is audio-visual rhetoric in cycling codesign situations?

AIMSThere is lots of data available in urban cycling situations. Can techniques be rethought and reintegrated for better results?

METHODEach group received a device with footage ‘the Climbing Cyclist’ journey of St

Kilda road [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hleXB6oXAJ8].

Groups are asked to list elements of video: Enjoyment, Annoyance, Danger.

Participants report back findings to the wider workshop group.

DISCUSSIONActivity 2A aimed to assess how participants responded to ‘raw’ cycling

representation. Participants were asked to analyse a helmet mounted GoPro

film of a cyclist travelling up St Kilda Road.

As discussed in Section 1.2, cycling must be thought in terms of time-space, a

combination of geography (urban space / infrastructure) and time (behaviour

/ traveling) (Lugo 2010).

Individuals were required to note elements of the ride under categories enjoyment, danger and annoyance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hleXB6oXAJ8

197

Many participants struggled to assess the footage, as things happened

quickly:‘Watching the video was very fast and hard to take in all the factors at play.’‘For me, the video was clearer in that the landmarks were easier to define. It was educational for me to see how a fast rider rides. But things were still happening too quickly for me to 'analyse'.’

Cycling conditions are not only fast, they are also complex, meaning they

are an assemblage of interrelated elements (Lugo 2010). Many participants felt that they could not ‘break up’ the continuous, fast frame of footage into

elements to be listed:

‘It’s kind of continual, isn’t it? It’s just continual drip drip annoyance. It’s not one particular, it’s all the time.’

The difficulty assessing the fastness and complexity of riding was reflected in participant responses:

Enjoyment

[DRIVER] not being on the two wheeled death trap[CYCLIST] no enjoymentw[CYCLIST] no[CYCLIST] no[DRIVER] leaves and shade, wind and fresh air, tram bells[DRIVER] fresh air, sunshine, fast, minimal enjoyment[CYCLIST] car waiting to turn, sunshine

A significant correlation between stakeholder type and response to the Enjoyment category was found. All cyclists bar one listed only no/ no

enjoyment under this category. The exception was the only participant who

had identified themselves as a pure cyclist (not a hybrid), an experienced St Kilda road rider.

An emergent trend in motorist participants was the likelihood of listing

positive elements such as fresh air and sunshine . This may indicate a

knowledge gap existing between individuals with personal experience cycling

the route and individuals that have never ridden the route.

The next segment of the activity, Activity 2B, exposed participants to the

Journey Game proper. The Journey Game tested using simulation to create a

more manageable framework of cycling for participants than raw footage.

199

ENJOYMENT?

not being on the two wheeled death

trap

no enjoyment

no

no

leaves and shade, wind and fresh air,

tram bells

fresh air, sunshine, fast,

DANGER?

parked cars, narrow lane, delivery

truck, car across bikelanes

don’t know how cyclists will react

to situations, overlap (veering) of

drivers on lanes

cars swerving into me, car door

opening, sun in eyes

ANNOYANCE?

thick truck in bike lane, person

overtaking on wrong-side [left hand

side], car in bike lane multiple times

pedestrians, blue car, taxis

constantly being alert to danger

slow on a turning lane, stress

pedestrians darting across road, cars

on bike path

pedestrian

other bikes

201

Activity 2B: Journey GameRESEARCH QUESTIONS

Can traditional forms of design activism be redesigned, with minimal means, to improve their use in codesign situations?

Is low fidelity element-based chunking a productive simulation for participants?

AIM• Test the effectiveness of a low fidelity simulation that can be quickly

made by a designer

• Break down cycling conditions into discrete ‘manageable’ elements for

participants to conceptualise and analyse

• Provoke an expand imagination of cycling in participants: different geog-

raphies, infrastructure, characters and scenarios.

PROPSCharacter Card Descriptions

Lee (MAMIL)

Lee gets up at 5am most morning for his regular 20km Bayside ride, testing out his brand new $2000 sportsbike. St Kilda road is his ‘normal life’ commute. Cyclists are slow, so Lee often rides in the car lane.

Trish (Young female, upright bike)

Trish studies commerce at Melbourne Uni. She’s loving the vintage steel

bike she bought in Collingwood last month. Cycling up St Kilda road can be

dangerous at times, but Trish tries to enjoy the ride!

Mark (Young male, reckless)

Mark’s just graduated from RMIT. A ‘creative type’, he works part-time in the

city, with his days starting a little later than most. Often late, he rides a little recklessly to make up for lost time. How else are you going to claim space on

the road unless you cycle a little bit aggressively?

Jane (Middle aged female)

Jane doesn’t see herself as a proper ‘cyclist’: those wear lycra and ride fast!

Safety conscious, Jane makes sure to always wear hi-vis on her ride up St

203

Kilda Road.

Scenario Cards• Dangerous ride

• Leisurely ride• Everyday ride

• Rushed ride

Moment cards

Stills from footage of cycling journeys from around the world were printed

on cards. Locations included St Kilda Road, London, Sao Paolo, Copenhagen. Images of keywords

These ‘moments’ were augmented with separate cards depicting images of

scenarios, people and places found by Google searches terms (fantasy ride,

bunch ride, stolen bike, dangerous ride, Copenhagen ride, children riding,

family ride).

METHOD• Participants divide into small groups. Each group receives a character

card and a scenario card

• Moment cards are spread around a large, communal table.

• Groups must construct a cycling journey from a sequence of these cards• Character x scenario cards form the ‘rules’ of the cardboard cycling sim-

ulation

• Participants create a journey for their character by string together a se-

quence of moment cards that satisfies their scenario • These journeys are presented to the group. Participants document jour-

ney by taking a photo of string of cards they create.

DATAOff the cuffFancy that as a fantasy? Here’s another fantasy - I think we need a bit more reality.That’s creative – we could make a little…Is that Copenhagen – that must be Copenhagen?Do you have any photographs of the bikes with tires removed, chains re-moved, just the skeleton? Ah yeah, that’s a bit of reality. So we can start out with the dream…

205

trish

Trish studies commerce at Melbourne Uni. She’s loving the vintage steel bike she bought in Collingwood last month.Cycling up St Kilda road can be dangerous at times, but Trish tries to enjoy the ride!

LEE

Most mornings, Lee gets up at 5am for his regular 20km Bayside ride, testing out his brand new $2000 sportsbike. St Kilda road is his ‘normal life’ commute. Cyclists are slow, so Lee often rides in the car lane.

207

mArk

A ‘creative type’, Mark works part-time in the city, starting his days a little later than most Often late, Mark rides a little recklessly to make up for lost time. How else are you going to claim space on the road unless you cycle a little bit aggressively?

TERRY

Terry doesn’t see herself as a proper ‘cyclist’: those wear lycra and ride fast! Safety conscious, Terry makes sure to always wear hi-vis on her ride up St Kilda Road.

209

ENJOYABLE

RIDE

LEE

RUSHED

RIDE

LEE

DANGEROUS

RIDE

LEE

LEISURELY

RIDE

LEE

ST KILDA ROAD

COPENHAGEN LONDON

CYCLIST ON BENCH

BIKE PARKING

DUTCH CYCLIST

STOLEN BIKE

CYCLIST TAKING BREAK

CRAZY BIKE

211

LONDON SAO PAULO RECKLESS CYCLIST

MAMIL RIDE LYCRA BAYSIDE RIDE

CYCLIST RUNNING RED

CYCLIST BREAKING LAW

CYCLIST TAKING BREAK

CRAZY BIKE

Mark x Rushed ride [Cyclist] [Other / Other / Driver]

So in our photos we have Mark represented by Cyclists in a race. He’s probably going to make some questionable decisions that will probably cause his demise.

[Group used a moment card of sculptural bike parking photo to represent a crash].

213

Lee x Dangerous ride [Driver / Other ] [Driver]

He’s very experienced and likes to take risk. Lee likes to overtake cyclists, so he rides in the car lane, thus a dangerous ride.

This picture shows Lee veering out of the bike lane, taking a few risks because there’s some obstacles in his path.

215

Again here he’s riding in the car lane, as the bike lane’s occupied by a large vehicle. This again is to show the speed he’s going for his dangerous ride. And then he crashes.

[Group uses a moment card of a disassembled bike to conveying crash].

Mark x enjoyable ride [Other / Other / Cyclist] [Cyclist / Other]

Mark’s creative, but he’s a bit aggressive. He takes risks because he’s in a hurry. You can see him here with the cyclists, he goes against that line, not riding too well. And here he crosses the white line to pass people.

But he also likes to have a good time, because it’s an enjoyable ride. So there he is, with his girlfriend, she’s got her legs off the pedal and her arm around him- they’re having a ball – enjoyment.

217

Q. Is that St Kilda Rad?

A. Oh I see, it’s on the edge of St Kilda Road. No it’s on the Tan, and they finished their ride without dying.

Mark x Rushed ride [Cyclist / Other] [Driver / Other]

We’ve got Mark and he’s really annoyed because someone’s made him wear this really stupid outfit and he’s rushing to Uniqlo to get a totally new outfit.

It’s winter, because of the trees. He’s going faster than that motorbike, and soon he’s in Fed Square – how come there are no taxis in that lane? And he doesn’t even blink twice when he’s got this huge bus veering into him.

219

But the happy thing is suddenly he’s in Copenhagen, and he’s at this cool coffee space where he can do his work and ride his bike at the same time.

Q. Where about is this ride?

Part of it’s in Copenhagen and the rest of its in St Kilda Road

Q. Why isn’t that St Kilda Road?

We’ve never seen [bike parking] like that on St Kilda Road - that’s not only bike parking, it’s interactive…

Trish x Leisurely Ride [Cyclist / Other]

Trish is out there on her vintage bike, about to have a sunny, leisurely ride. In her mind she’s got a picture of the kids and its all joyful and easy, and relaxed. And she gets on St Kilda Road and she’s got those nice trees and she’s going up between the grass and its very relaxing.

Then this bus comes along and pulls out in front of her - it’s a bit of a problem because the bus is 40 feet long – so she swerves and pulls back. As she pulls back she almost goes into the back of this front-end loader truck. She goes around the bollard and incidentally she notices that the guys who have these large trucks always put their bollards right in the middle of the cycling path so they can occupy both their parking area and the

221

cycling path. They do this recurrently. Probably because they actually don’t like cyclists so they’re just getting the message across – they’re bigger, you’re smaller.

So she keeps going along and there’s another car – it’s a stretch limousine with about six doors and she doesn’t know which of the stretch limo doors will actually door her. Fortunately none of them do open so she gets past that, narrowly avoids a taxi coming round the corner and decides shit I’ve got to have a cup of coffee.

When she comes back her bike is stripped.

Q. Is this is on St Kilda Road?

A: This is on St Kilda road, absolutely.

DISCUSSIONThe Journey Game tested the effectiveness of using a low fidelity simulation to describe cycling environments. The card-based game ‘chunked’ scene-

making elements of urban cycling into cardboard props. The aim was to

aid participants in interrogating urban cycling, challenge assumptions, and

prompt individuals to expand their imagination.

Moment cards translated separate and fast cycling journeys into discrete,

‘stackable’ blocks. These blocks quantized ride-geography and time for participants. Event and Character cards created the rules for a participant’s

proposed ride, which then had to be completed at ‘run-time’ by a string of

Moment cards.

The simulation required minimal technical skills (low fidelity), and was readily extendable by simply printing new scenarios, characters and moments

(highly flexible).

Moment cards created easier-to-grasp cycling ‘blocks’ for participants,

interoperable across videos from different cycling scenes. This was an

effective method at introducing participants to novel cycling scenarios and

infrastructures. Participants did not passively see precedents but actively

had to use them: first selecting, and then creating a narrative of each ‘moment’ for their character and scenario.

Narratives often focused on the dangers of cycling. Many journeys ended

with images of dismantled bikes, and one even ending with a sculptural

bike rack, to signify crash moments. This is an example of ‘modding’ the

simulation by participants, as none of these cards depicted crashes.

No trends in journeys produced by drivers and cyclists could be identified, unlike the groupings of responses by stakeholder type seen in Activity 2A.

Participants successfully met Character and Event conditions, all creating

complex narratives reflecting scene, event and character.

This ‘levelling out’ of participant responses may have been the result of

the group-based nature of the activity. Yet similar journeys were seen both

in predominately driver groups and predominately cyclist groups. Another

possibility was that element-chunking helped participants analyse the ride in

front of them, rather than individuals being overwhelmed by complexity and

falling back on preconceived ideas of cycling.

Another trend in participant journeys was a disregard for geography.

Element-based chunking created a simulation prioritising discrete events

rather than a continuous flow. One group transported their rider from St Kilda Road to Copenhagen (refer p.213). Another improvised a change in location of

the final part of their ride to a nearby botanical garden at the prompt Is this on St Kilda Road? (refer p.211).

223

Participants seemed to use moment cards for scene setting [ie. there is a

bus] rather than a deeper level of analysis [ie. the kerb forces the cyclist into

the bus]. Participant responses grew more considered after the prompt Is this

on St Kilda Road? Future Journey Games should employ more prompts such as these, encouraging participants to analyse (and then have a chance to

update) artefacts they present.

The Journey Game demonstrates the flexibility of low-fidelity. Precedents were drawn from over the world with minimal effort. Rules could be updated

mid-game to achieve better outcomes, such as prompting participants for

further analysis in their journey with the question Is this on St Kilda Road?

Low levels of immersion and authority, however, meant participants engaged in less detailed analysis. There was little incentive for players to pay close

attention to the process. The next activity used Pocket Pedal as a high fidelity artefact in an attempt to provoke a deeper level of analysis in participants.

workshop demonstrated the knowledge a designer can gain around an issue

from running codesign games.

Activity 3: Participatory Navigation(Pocket Pedal integrated with low fidelity artefacts)

HIGH FIDELITY ARTIFACTS: Pocket Pedal Simulation LOW FIDELITY ARTIFACTS: Brain cards GAME ELEMENTS USED: Rules, Conflicts, Immersion, Real-time Outcomes

Participatory Navigation introduced workshop participants to the Pocket Pedal game. An individual controlled Pocket Pedal on a large screen as directed by the workshop audience. Like Forum Theatre, audience members were not passive but active participants. Through this method of indirect play, non-gaming participants could interact with the simulation without feeling intimidated.

Participatory Navigation nested Pocket Pedal in a wider game. The immersive but rigid electronic simulation was embedded in a low-fidelity cardboard game, allowing both immersion and improvisation.

225

227

229

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Can a combination of high fidelity and low fidelity games extend codesign situations?

Can performance chunking be used for collaborative codesign cycling situations?

Does performance chunking more accurately reflect urban cycling experiences than element chunking?

AIM• To test the Pocket Pedal game in a structured play framework

• To trial procedural chunking as a way of interrogating existing conditions

• Simulate the sensory overload associated with cycling

METHODOn projector, Pocket Pedal is introduced and played on a large screen by an individual (the ‘cyclist’) in front of the group (the ‘brain’).

Brain audience members each receive a Brain card describing a task they

must do. Each tasks partially controls the cyclist.

At run-time, the ‘cyclist’ must play Pocket Pedal at the instructions of their

audience ‘brain’.

DATA‘Oh you’re a lycra person – alright, speed up!’‘A 145 points to beat!’‘This is a very dangerous stretch – I think that’s the conclusion’‘I got you in a door! Oh no, I didn’t see that!’‘That’s obviously the ex husband’

231

NAVIGATION BRAIN PARKED CRR BRAIN

Your task is to direct me. Yell out ‘LEFT’ , ‘RIGHT’, ‘STOP’, ‘GO’ when needed

You’ll be looking out for double parked cars. Yell out PARKED CAR when I need to avoid one. Note down how many double parked cars you see when I’m playing:

SPEED BRAIN DOORING BRAIN

Your task is to let me know how fast I should be going. Yell out FASTER or SLOWER when needed

Your task is to watch out for dooring. Yell out CAR DOOR when you see one. Jot down how many doors you see below:

DISCUSSIONParticipatory Navigation exposed participants to the high fidelity game Pocket Pedal for the first time. Participants come from a range of backgrounds, some with little experience in video games. This part of the

workshop acquainted participants to Pocket Pedal, slowly giving individuals greater control over the game.

The activity combined two games. The first was Pocket Pedal itself, an immersive simulation of cycling St Kilda Road. This was then nested in the

lower fidelity but more flexible Participatory Navigation game.

Through this combination of a high fidelity artefacts (Pocket Pedal) embedded in low fidelity artefacts (Brain cards detailing a specific cycling ‘process’), a new mode of cycling analysis was introduced to participants.

Simulation through performance chunkingThe previous Moment Card activities created a cycling framework through

element-based chunking. This is a serial process of dividing a ride into

sequential cycling ‘blocks’ that can be stacked on top of each other for analysis: setting, character, moment.

The Pocket Pedal simulation quantizes cycling though a process of performance chunking. Performance chunking makes cycling blocks

out of processes and rules: the performances a cyclist must undertake

simultaneously on a ride. Rather than framing a ride as a series of sequential cycling events, processes of cycling are highlighted: hazards, speed,

frustration, road rules.

The benefits of chunking remain; namely breaking down complexity into manageable pieces to be analysed. The difference is that performance

chunking is done in parallel. Cycling blocks are not placed ‘on top’ of each

other, rather blocks are placed side by side and occur simultaneously.

233

RISK BRAIN NEAR MISS BRAIN

Your task is to keep me alive. Yell out ‘BACK TO THE BIKEPATH!’ when you think my health circle is too low.

Your task is to note any near misses I encounter. Write these down.

ANGRY CYCLIST

BRAIN

ANGRY DRIVER

BRAIN

Your task it to yell out when a vehicle does anything that’d annoy a cyclist. Note these down:

Your task it to yell out when I do anything that would anger a motorist. Write these down:

RISK BRAIN NEAR MISS BRAIN

Your task is to keep me alive. Yell out ‘BACK TO THE BIKEPATH!’ when you think my health circle is too low.

Your task is to note any near misses I encounter. Write these down.

ANGRY CYCLIST

BRAIN

ANGRY DRIVER

BRAIN

Your task it to yell out when a vehicle does anything that’d annoy a cyclist. Note these down:

Your task it to yell out when I do anything that would anger a motorist. Write these down:

NestingThrough Brain cards, specific performance chunks of cycling could be highlighted to participants, emphasising elements of the cognitive load of

riding.

This is the second ‘game’ in the activity: the focused analysis and group

negotiation that must be done when riding is divided into a series of tasks

distributed amongst the group ‘Brain’.

Navigation and Speed Brain cards ‘control’ the player. Individuals in charge of

these cards direct the player’s movement and speed. Double Parked Car and

Dooring Brains are hazard identifier tasks, alerting the group to danger on the road. Other participants have behaviour modifier tasks, influencing not the player but other ‘Brains’ themselves. Risky Behaviour Brain sets the risk level

of a ride; Navigation and Speed brains modulating their direction to match this decided level of risk.

Feedback indicated that breaking down tasks formed a useful conceptual framework for analysis for some:

I felt more confident analysing the game when we had one task assigned to us (ie Navigation). Watching the video was very fast and hard to take in all the factors at play.I found the video, with just the forward looking lens - harder to analyse [than playing Pocket Pedal]. The speed at which the cyclist was going didn’t help

Flexibility through social interactionNesting Pocket Pedal into the flexibility of group play made the simulation more personal. The decision of one participant had consequences on rest of the Brain. If the Speed brain decided to go faster, the task of the Dooring

brain became more difficult

An unanticipated behaviour arising through this interaction was the collective

moderation of participants. The group Brain had a vested interest in ‘winning’

(getting the cyclist to the city) and would collectively override less successful

instructions, ‘bleeding’ commands across discrete tasks:

[Speed Brain] ‘Go faster!’ [Group] ‘No!!’

Like in Forum Theatre, dialogues is an inherently flexible activity, as people respond to each other contingently. A game that incorporates improvisation,

negotiation and mediation into the very rules of its simulatio is much more

successful at generating outcomes unknown to the designer.

235

NO NO NO NO NO NO

FASTER! COME ON!

YOUR REFLEXES ARE TER-RIBLE!

OH NO! AWWW!

WHAT’S THAT BLOODY CAR DOING THERE?

STOP!!! STOP!!!!!!

237

DOOR!

RIGHT!

GO GO GO YEAH!!!

FIFTY FIVE? WHAT IS THAT?

MY RIDING STYLE WAS GREAT!

239

FASTER FASTER FASTER!

FIFTY FIVE? HOW DID YOU ONLY GET THAT SCORE?

ConsequencesParticipant analysis was not done in a vacuum but rather had immediate

consequences: wrong instructions leading to the player crashing. An emerging theme was the visceral response participants felt around riding due

to the immediate feedback from the game:

When actually riding you have a protective bubble of hope - that you hope that the cars and trucks will avoid you. The game removes this comforting assumption and brings home the face that the riders are so vulnerable on St Kilda RoadBy playing the game I experienced viciously the feeling of cycling on St Kilda Road.

Unlike in previous event-based chunking activities, participants here were

very aware of the continual flow of cycling:It made me realise just how many snap decisions cyclist have to make and the sheer volume of hazards they face on the road. It is not something you consider as a driverI think I was mostly aware of the particular features of St Kilda Road - for cyclists and drivers. What I hadn’t noticed as much was the regularity and intensity of which these hazards can occur - and all at the same time.

Immediate consequences to player interaction give participants a vested interest in paying close attention to the cycling scenario. However, too great

consequences negatively effect participant contribution, as players may fear they will cause the group to fail.

The playfulness of Pocket Pedal ensured a close reading of the situation

(through consequences) yet still encouraged participants to explore. Interaction was always framed as play; trying new things and failing just part of enjoying the game.In Participatory Navigation, interaction with the

simulation was indirect, with cycling tasks distributed through the group. The

next phase of the workshop had participants playing the game individually to

assess the effectiveness of Pocket Pedal as discrete artefact.

241

ANGRY DRIVER BRAIN1. Why is this cyclist allowed on the

road in the first place!2. Out of the bike lane!3. Too slow, get moving

4. Get over

5. Out of bike lane6. Between the lanes of cars!

NEAR MISS BRAINInto car when going around parked

Dito

Too far across and into third lane and

car door

Dito

Car went close

Close to car when car parked over

lane

Crash into truck when gone back into

lane

Through a truck

ANGRY CYLIST BRAINOut of bike laneCar side swipe

No bike lane

Door

Car parked in lane

Construction

Door

No lane

Bus in lane

Bloody car in lane

Can’t these cars see me?

Left turning car hit meDored = dead

Another door

I will haunt this bus!

243

Activity 4: Individual Play(Pocket Pedal as discrete artefact)

HIGH FIDELITY ARTIFACTS: Pocket Pedal LOW FIDELITY ARTIFACTS: Assessment Cards GAME ELEMENTS USED: Rules, Conflicts, Immersion, Real-time Outcomes, Competition

AIMIndividual Play tested the use of Pocket Pedal as a discrete artefact in

codesign. The artefact was assessed to see if a defined simulation could create a personal and collaborative environment in its own right, rather than

needing to rely on supporting low-fi processes.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Can codesign be extended through discrete higher-fidelity digital games?

Can participants negotiate an assemblage of performance chunking by themselves?

METHODParticipants form small groups, each with a smartphone. Group members

take turns playing Pocket Pedal. Remaining group members assessed a

participant’s ride, and offer comments and support.

DATAOff the cuff responsesOh my god, you had such an easy run through the NGV!I hit a truck, I was going too fast I think,There are a lot of dangers for cyclists out there in Melbourne today – such as cars parked on the bike lane, which stop you regenerating your health! Unpredictability and people not following the rules.You’ve had hardly any near misses - You’re as good as this as sodoku!My score is awesome! It’s ridiculous. 228!

245

DISCUSSIONA lab for testing ideasThe gradual introduction to Pocket Pedal through Participatory Navigation

prepped participants for their personal virtual ride. When playing individually,

players had to manage tasks simultaneously: travelling through urban

road space, identifying infrastructure, hazard detection, avoidance, risk

assessment, monitoring vehicles. Pocket Pedal required participants to negotiate an assemblage of procedural cycling blocks.

Participants appreciated the flexibility of individual play, allowing riders to explore and test out ideas in a safe environment:

[the game is an opportunity] to test whether we can safely and efficiently share the road as now, or whether it is necessary to have fully separated bike lanes.The video was more horrifying because it was a real person. The game allows for multiple experiences.

MechanicsGame mechanics provided the framework to ensure participants were not

overwhelmed. A score, increasing every ten metres, rewarded participants for

sound urban cycling through the implantation of ‘bike health’. The amount

of cycling points accrued per ‘tick’ was determined by a rider’s bike health

state. Higher health gave more points.

There are a lot of dangers for cyclists out there in Melbourne today – such as cars parked on the bike lane, which stop you regenerating your health!

Bike health decreased when a player stepped outside a bike lane, or was

involved in a crash. Bike health would regenerate when a rider was correctly

inside a bike lane, and immediately go back to full if a player passed over a

bike box (the recommended area, painted green, where a cyclist should enter

an intersection).

Visual and audio warnings were used to guide players back to safety. Leaving the bike lane triggered a large animated warning to fill the bottom part of a participant’s screen. Background music pitch was tied to a player’s health:

the lower a player’s health, the more sombre the music.

Many players found the challenge of achieving a high score enjoyable:

Really surprised at how addictive and fun it is. It’s actually like a game. You stray off the path, you’re in trouble - you’re like ‘oh my god, I need to get back on the path!’

The scoring system forced a player to confront and interact with the cycling

infrastructure of the route. St Kilda road’s key infrastructural issues, bike

lane proximity to parked cars and opening car doors, and the dangerous

location of bike boxes, had to be negotiated.

Sudden disappearances of the bike lane [on St Kilda Road] became more noticeable due to scoring system

247

A player ‘lost’ when they collided with a vehicle on low health. The force of the

crash was calculated, with the collision normal vector (frontal smash, from

behind, sideswipe) and likely injury sustained (broken toe, broken arm, broken

neck, etc) presented to the player alongside their score.

A player ‘won’ when they successfully navigated to the city. Their score was

presented, alongside an assessment of their riding depending on how many

bike boxes they passed.

Stakeholder discussionThe assessment of ‘winning’ and ‘loosing’ created an atmosphere of healthy

competition in participants: each ride gave players a metric to compare:

My score is awesome! It’s ridiculous. 228!As a ‘driver’ playing a cyclist role it was fun. I do not play computer games so most of my time was a desperate attempt to get my bike back into the bike lane. The fun was comparing my results with things - especially with my wife.

Wanting to do well meant participants had to analyse the virtual environment

closely. Many driver participants felt the game was an effective way for them

to consider urban road space from a new perspective:

As I am not a cyclist, I was not aware of the numerous traffic hazards in the area and the lack of space they have available to ride safely.It puts drivers and people who use public transport in a cyclist’s shoes and I think makes every player think “wow, I had no idea it was like this for cyclists”Playing the game made it kind of glaringly obvious that cyclists have so many other factors / considerations they need to be aware of.

Playing the game created a framework for participants to start filling in knowledge gaps between stakeholder types:

I was surprised by elements that road drivers find difficult - like the ambi-guity of where [cyclists] are meant to go at the intersection with the NGV.The game was a great leveler, with drivers and cyclists meeting in more neutral ground

249

AbstractionA key design decision was the stylised portrayal of the virtual world. The St

Kilda Road of Pocket Pedal is colourful and pixelated, an attempt at diffusing

some of the tension in the urban cycling debate through the creation of a

playful cycling simulation.

Unlike raw cycling footage, elements of cycling were emphasised or

deemphasised in the cycling simulation. An exaggerated intensity was

created to transform a 30 minute real ride into a three minute pocket experience. Doorings and double-parked cars were made to occur at a high

frequency, the cyclist character larger than life:

The game is a lot faster and the character is quite large compared to the environment, so the road seems smaller and the cars closer. It kind of

amplifies/exaggerates the real experience.The game is not an exact simulation of cycling, so maybe it didn’t seem as threatening or seeming like it had a strong pro-cycling agenda, so drivers were not put offI think as a game, [cyclists and drivers] would definitely have fun as it makes light of the scenario.

Some participants, however, found the stylised nature of the game

distracting:

It was a little too abstract to notice anything concrete.The game for me was too abstract, I had trouble identifying where I was and things happened at too great a speed….[You should work on] identi-fying the possible dangers at the beginning and maybe having them with distinct featuresChallenges

Some of the non-gaming participants found Pocket Pedal had a significant learning curve:

I found that the car was in the way, unexpectedly, and it suddenly shot and flipped over and there was this message - you and a sad family - I thought I was going quite ok.I was going really fast, I was speeding along, but then I had an accident and unfortunately I have a ‘sad family’ at home. If I’d done it before it would have been easier. Doing it for the first time, going out and in and fast was a bit hard. While [younger participants] are used to doing it. I reckon if I got used to it I’d be good.

A ‘High Vis Mode’, turning a player bright yellow, attempted to reduce the

game’s learning curve for non gaming participants. High Vis Mode turned off

collisions between the cyclists and cars, allowing a player to pass through

hazards. This feature was less successfully than hoped, as participants most

in need were the individuals with the least ability to activate the mode.

251

Results

Made it to the City? Score Comment

Yes 49 Riding style: OK!

NO 0 Injury: Sad family!

YES 152 Riding style: Great!

YES 228 Riding style: Great!

NO 89 Injury: Frontal Smash!

NO 0 Injury: Sad family!

YES 53 Riding style: Poor!

YES 230 Riding Style: Great!

Scores from recorded rides in the workshop indicated over half of

participants successfully ‘won’ Pocket Pedal. Only two recorded rides failed. Even amongst non-gaming participants, the majority successfully navigated

the assemblage of performance chunks of cycling.

Pocket Pedal as a discrete artefactAn artefact must be very robust in order to support participants playing

on their own. Unlike in Participatory Navigation, unstructured play had no

supporting low-fi processes to make up for gaps in the simulation. Game mechanics alone guided a player, and controls had to be developed that were

easy enough for non-gamers to use.

Pocket Pedal was, in most senses, robust enough for individual play.

When participants could take complete control over a character, they can

appropriate it entirely for themselves. Cycling environments participants

wanted to experience again could be retried; new strategies deployed. Individual play let participants discover new things and then test out this

new knowledge in their next run of the game. The lure of a higher score is

tempting:

A: Two-twenty-eight. Two hundred and twenty-eight. Just saying. B: [Turns around in shock:] You got a score of 228??

Though participants played individually, through the smartphone medium,

play occurred simultaneously. Game mechanics such as scoring and

injury type turned the personal attachment generated through individual

interaction into tools for collaboration.

The final part of the workshop attempted to use this collaborative, expanded design space in participants to generate new ideas.

WHERE HAS THE BIKE LANE GONE?

OH SHIT... THAT WAS A BAD ONE

OH, DID YOU JUST BANG INTO OH THE SIDE?

NO.... YOU DIDN’T SEE THAT!

YOU’RE DEAD... UP IN HEAVEN!

YOU GOT RUN OVER.. THAT’S REALLY BAD

OH NO

WHAT DID YOU DO THERE?

I’M GETTING THE BONUS POINT [BOXES]. THEY’RE RIGHT IN THE BIKELANE

YOU’RE JUST CRUISING NOW!

253

THIS IS THE BEST I’VE EVER BEEN!

OH MY GOD MY SCORE IS AWESOME THIS TIME

[YOU GOT A SCORE OF] 228???

255

228. 228. JUST SAYING

DO YOU [WANT TO] KNOW HOW MANY INJURIES YOU

HAD?

Activity 5: Prompt Game(low fidelity artefacts)

HIGH FIDELITY ARTIFACTS: Null LOW FIDELITY ARTIFACTS: Site map, Prompt Cards GAME ELEMENTS USED: Rules

The Prompt Game let participants step back from previous workshop activities. By taking Prompt cards, participants were encouraged to critique both urban cycling conditions and design assumptions made in Pocket Pedal.

RESEARCH QUESTION

How have these design methods impacted participant conceptions of existing conditions of St Kilda road?

Can such codesign activities create a productive environment for idea generation?

AIMSPrevious workshop activities aimed to expand the design space of

participants by interrogating existing cycling conditions and exposing

participants to new ideas.

The Prompt Game attempted to use this expanded design space to generate

novel solutions and ideas around urban cycling and St Kilda Road.

METHODParticipants were asked to annotate a high quality aerial map of the route. Annotation was done by filling in a series of cards with headings like:

I wish this was…

It’s dangerous here…

257

I saw this overseas once…

Here’s a silly idea…

I like…

The cards aimed to prompt individuals, creating a supportive framework for

idea generation.

DATAResponses: Fantastic combination bike parking and pause station to check one’s com-puter at workSeparate designated bike lane where it was obvious there would be con-gestion / obstacles [Image of busses outside NGV] ] A seperated lane to safely switch lanes and cars have to wait for you to safely go [Image of Kings way lane change[Image of General SKR run] Bike lane in left lane. Why note have a bike lane down the centre of St Kild a Road, seperated from traffic (Participant underline)[Image of Kings way lane change] Bike traffic lights, refined bike trackbike lanes

Survey:No. I’ve already spent signifcant time looking at different design options. However, it was good to consolidate.Yes we talked together about the separated route in Coburg that we would like seem applied. The Copenhagen ideas also helped.It did not give me direct ideas but definetely made me think about how much there was to gain from a workshop directly dedicated to coming up with new ways to achieve “harmony: on the road with all the different types of commutersSee (4.) I also enjoyd seeing the innovative parking ideas shown in [Activ-ity 2B]. I liked the Norman Foster ideas of elevating the bike lanes. In his case, above the London Underground. I really think the only safe bikelane is a seperated bike lane.The obvius idea is for Copenhagen style bike lanes. I know that there are various issues and design difficulties with this. Perhaps the next game could be to design the bike lanes! I loved the picture of bike riders in Ja-pan(?) Pulled intoa dock type structure with bikes - laptops - the impor-tance of[clarify] and functionally bike racks.yes: connecting the bike lane the whole route; separating cycling from parking AND driving (ie. not placing cycling in between parking/driving lanes) so cars don’t block the route (grade separation?); The workshop did give me a few ideas about designing new ways for cyclists to use the road. The main idea that I had would be some kind of completely separate cycling lane that cars actually cannot use. Similar to a footpath but purely for cyclists to use, with no parked cars etc

259

DISCUSSIONMixed idea generationEmergent from responses from all stakeholder types was the desire for

segregated bike infrastructure:

Separate designated bike lane where it was obvious there would be con-gestion and obstacles A separated lane to safely switch lanes and cars have to wait for you to safely go Why not have a bike lane down the centre of St Kilda Road, separated from traffic? Bike traffic lights, refined bike trackBike lanes

Idea generation, however, was less successful. Many annotations were simple

statements lacking a deeper level of analysis. A major contributing factor

was fatigue, as participants had been undertaking workshop activities for

several hours.

Some responses did draw on previous activities:

What about a possible scoring system in real life? Ie. similar to green lights pacing distance between lights?I wish this was… a fantastic combination bike parking and pause station to check one’s computer while riding

These responses were the most fine-grained, considering the process of cycling rather than simple statements.

The need for immediate response in simulationOne factor limiting idea generation was intimidation: participants felt their ideas were less valid than professional planners:

Participant A: ‘is this is just for you….?’Participant B: ‘not for like, urban planners?’ [laughs]

The lack of a feedback system for the proposals and the open ended nature

of the activity contributed to the creation of a less productive environment

for ideas. Previous activities had defined, limited frameworks with immediate consequences for participant input. Such constraints are conducive to idea generation as participants focus on the artificial rules / boundaries of the activity rather than the consequences of their ideas in the real world.

Activity 4 was less effective at facilitating participants to recompile

their cycling analysis into specific infrastructural solutions. The activity demonstrated the importance of using consequences and immediate response for future workshop activities.

261

Appreciation of human infrastructureRather than focus on the specifics of suggesting new built infrastructure, many responses indicated a new appreciation for the behavioural issues

around urban cycling:

It did not give me direct ideas but definitely made me think about how much there was to gain from … coming up with new ways to achieve har-mony on the road with all the different types of commuters

This human infrastructure (pedestrian, traffic, and cyclists identities and behaviour) is by nature ephemeral and hardest to define (refer Section 1) This, in turn, makes it difficult to be ‘designed’ by planners and architects.

In future activities, creating a more game-like activity for infrastructural

proposals should be explored. Important missing elements are using defined rules and game props (forcing participants to focus on the specifics), and implementing an immediate feedback system (creating a safe space for

participants to test out ideas).

In any case, though participants may not have the expertise to design

physical infrastructure, they can make effective contributions to a road’s

human infrastructure, key to any successful cycling environment.

263

265

Workshop DiscussionThe Pocket Pedal workshop demonstrated the knowledge a designer can gain

around an issue from running codesign games.

Game artefacts are ‘things’ architects can make that prompt users to ‘do’.

Making actions physical is easy to conceptualise for a profession that is

focused around designing (albeit very large) objects. Through the considered

design of simulation, spaces for self-discovery in users can be created.

By embedding these artefacts in further activities, this self-discovery is

transformed into activist design.

Design frameEach codesign game employed different methods to break down cycling into

various conceptual ‘blocks’ for participants to test. Participant responses

indicated that this shared design frame allowed stakeholders to reinterpret a

familiar environment:

I didn’t realise how important it was as a cycling road and that it is also a danger to the cyclists using the road. To me as a driver, it was just another road really, not that different from any otherSome road users are focused on their destination so much that other fac-tors aren’t considered. Workshops provide a fuller picture of what is going on and [makes participants] consider all road users involved.

The shared design frame allowed knowledge gaps between participants to

be highlighted. An emergent theme through workshop activities was the

legitimisation of bike riders. Namely, the idea that infrastructure often causes

cyclists to behave in an ‘erratic’ manner as seen by motorists:

Especially for the motorists who have not ridden a bike since they were kids and see riders as bloody nuisances rather than legitimate road users. It changes their consciousness.It made me realize there is a reason that cyclists sometimes have to ride in what may seem an “erratic” manner.

Workshop activities gave a chance for participants to explore all experiences

surrounding urban cycling, creating a space where previous conceptions

could be left behind.

267

Combining game artefactsThe use of rules in design games is important in establishing a defined space participants can engage in. Element based chunking made participants

think of cycling in terms sequential blocks of rider, setting and moment. Performance chunking broke cycling down to the various tasks that need to

be performed when riding (navigation, hazard identification, speed, etc). Such methods forced participants to move away from the general to look at the

specifics of an issue.

Each set of rules framed participant interrogation: element chunking exposed

participants to a wider set of cycling conditions, performance chunking led to

more considered analysis of a single ride.

Each simulation also had trade-offs. Element chunking drew focus away from

the ‘flow’ of cycling. Performance chunking required a much higher fidelity simulation. The difference in participant ‘output’ per simulation emphasises

the important of complementing games with each other for optimal results.

Game artefacts are powerful when they are nested. A low fidelity game can expose participants to the diversity of an issue (Journey Game) while a

subsequent simulation can let players experience a more limited but much detailed segment of it (Pocket Pedal). A card game ‘controlling’ a videogame

makes a limited high fidelity simulation flexible and contingent (Participatory Navigation).

Creating a safer space through feedback mecha-nismsFeedback for participant input is vital for testing ideas. In the Pocket Pedal cycling simulation, participant direction of the player had immediate

consequences: poor judgement would cause the player to crash or lose points. In the Backwards Interview Game, points motivated participants, even

when they had no effect on activities.

Without immediate response, participants cannot test out ideas in an activity

and are more likely to break out of the magic circle. The Prompt Game had

the least amount of feedback built in: participants were unsure if their ideas

for the St Kilda Road route were ‘good enough’. There was no system for

individuals to test out ideas, no ability for participants to respond and update

their proposals according to new information learned.

These artificial systems of cause and effect in games create a protective space for participants. Players can concentrate on the rules and

consequences of the game, rather than focusing on (and become intimidated by) the issue in reality. Upon reflection, ‘Responsiveness’ should be added to the parameters of simulation alongside fidelity, flexibility, authority and immersion.

269

Using novelty, engagement and play Novelty and engagement should not be underestimated in participatory

design activities. Games create informal atmospheres, best for idea

creation (Brandt 2006b). Good game mechanics challenge people, focusing participants by investing them in an activity’s success. High scores and

points metricise participation, giving individuals a framework in which to

compare results and a vector for engaging with each other.

The whole workshop was engaging partly because of the use of mixed stimuli - photos, videos and of course the iPhone game….I think this type of lively workshop has great potential for schools, even learners drivers and other groups.Approaching the issue in an unorthodox way enabled the opportunity for novel ideas.

There is an emergent quality in play. Participants do not only interrogating a situation with a game, but also explore through engaging with each other.

Emergent vectors are comparison (what score did you get?), observation

(watching another participant play) and interaction (egging each other on,

giving a player advice). Playing a design game creates metadesign synergies,

where agents combine to create new outcomes exceeding the sum of their

parts (Wood 2008).

Workshop OutcomesThough the workshop did not generate ‘solutions’ to cycling, this is less

important. In an ecology as complex as cycling, design needs to play a role

managing such spaces rather than simply designing things and leaving. From this perspective, the workshop was successful. Follow up interviews (a week later) revealed playing Pocket Pedal had a measurable influence on how some saw St Kilda Road:

[Cyclist]: When riding the same route I was very conscious of how this part looked in the game and the elements that were influencing why this section of the road was particularly bad[Driver]: When I drive up, my focus is getting to the destination quickly without re-ally taking in my surroundings. Playing the game has influenced the way I think in St KIlda Road now. I’m almost hyperaware of anything around me.[Cyclist][Playing the game] gave the route an identity and differentiated it from all cycling problems. The activities made the issues present, and seem more approachable and tangible to change rather than just the general com-ment that cycling infrastructure is bad as a whole and therefore too large a problem to fix.

Play, it seems, caused a lasting impact in these participants.

Future workMany lessons were learnt for future workshops. Participatory Navigation

(using a card game to ‘play’ the smartphone game PocketPedal) was a great

success and should be further developed. Stakeholder generated rules (for

example, ‘write your own brain card’) would be an interesting method for

making high fidelity electronic games ‘moddable’ by participants.

There was a focus on need-generation and reducing stakeholder ignorance

in the workshop. Future workshops should more deeply explore idea creation through games. Additionally, workshops should be run with a more diverse/

conflicting set of stakeholders, as all participants in this instance were friendly and accommodating for the duration of the workshop.

Immersive participatory gaming on smartphones is a new frontier. Only recently have mobile devices become powerful enough to run fully 3D

worlds made of unoptimised code generated by a novice coder (such as an

architecture student).

The implications of ubiquitous smartphone power are huge. Smartphones allow virtual simulation to break out of computers and into the pockets of

everyone, always connected. Can the productive metagame produced by

the workshop setting be replicated without needing the workshop itself? If

the workshop process could be replicated online, and Pocket Pedal released

to the public, participation would increase exponentially. What could the

cumulative effect of tens of thousand of people in Melbourne participating in

an electronic codesign process be?

271

BibliographyAlbinsson, L., Forsgren, O. & Lind, M., 2008. Towards a Co-Design Approach for

Open Innovation. Designed for Co-designers workshop, 1(5), pp.1–5.

Albinsson, L., Forsgren, O. & Lind, M., Towards a Co-Design Approach for Open Innovation.

Aldred, R., 2012. Incompetent or too competent? Negotiating everyday cycling identities in a motor dominated society. , (August 2015).

Aldred, R., Woodcock, J. & Goodman, A., 2015. Does More Cycling Mean More Diversity in Cycling? Transport Reviews, (August), pp.1–17.

Allatt, T.F., Turner, S. & Tarjomi, L., 2013. Reallocation of road space August 2013,

Allen, R., 2011. The Unreal Enemy of America’s Army. Games and Culture, 6(1),

pp.38–60.

Binder, T., 1999. Setting the stage for improvised video scenarios. In CHI ’99 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '99.

New York, New York, USA: ACM Press, p. 230.

Björgvinsson, E., Ehn, P. & Hillgren, P.-A., 2012. Agonistic participatory design: working with marginalised social movements. CoDesign, 8(2-3), pp.127–

144.

Bogost, I., 2007. Persuasive games : the expressive power of videogames / Ian Bogost., Cambridge, Mass. : MIT Press, c2007.

Bogost, I., 2006. Unit Operations: An Approach to Videogame Criticism,

Brandt, E., 2006a. Designing exploratory design games. In Proceedings of the ninth conference on Participatory design Expanding boundaries in design - PDC ’06. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press, p. 57.

Brandt, E., 2006b. Designing exploratory design games. Proceedings of the ninth conference on Participatory design Expanding boundaries in de-sign - PDC ’06, 1(September), p.57.

Brandt, E., 2007. How Tangible Mock-Ups Support Design Collaboration. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 20(3), pp.179–192.

Brandt, E., Messeter, J. & Binder, T., 2008. Formatting design dialogues – games and participation. CoDesign, 4(1), pp.51–64.

Chaurand, N. & Delhomme, P., 2013. Cyclists and drivers in road interactions: A comparison of perceived crash risk. Accident; analysis and prevention,

50, pp.1176–84.

Cossio, M.L.T. et al., 2012. Block’hood: Developing an architectural simulation video game. Uma ética para quantos?, XXXIII(2), pp.81–87.

Daniel Eriksson, Johan Peitz, S.B., 2005. Socially Adaptable Games. In DiGRA 2005.

DiSalvo, C., 2012. Adversarial design / Carl DiSalvo., Cambridge, Mass. : MIT

Press, 2012.

273

ESA, 2015. 2015 Sales, Demographic and Usage Data,

Ferrara, J., 2013. Games for Persuasion: Argumentation, Procedurality, and the Lie of Gamification. Games and Culture, 8(4), pp.289–304.

Fishman, E., Schepers, P. & Kamphuis, C.B.M., 2015. Dutch Cycling: Quanti-fying the Health and Related Economic Benefits. American Journal of Public Health, 105(8), pp.e1–e3.

Frasca, G., 2001a. Frasca, Gonzalo. 2001. “Videogames of the Oppressed :vid-

eogames as a Means for Critical Thinking and Debate.” https://ezp.lib.

unimelb.edu.au/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?di-

rect=true&db=edsndl&AN=edsndl.oai.union.ndltd.org.GATECH.oai.s.

Frasca, G., 2001b. Rethinking agency and immersion: video games as a means of consciousness-raising. Digital Creativity, 12(3), p.167.

Frasca, G., 2003. Simulation versus narrative. The video game theory reader,

pp.221–235.

Fuller, M. & Matos, S., 2011. FCJ-135 Feral Computing: From Ubiquitous Calcu-

lation to Wild Interactions. The Fibreculture Journal, (FCJ-135).

Garrard, J., Rose, G. & Lo, S.K., 2008. Promoting transportation cycling for women: the role of bicycle infrastructure. Preventive medicine, 46(1),

pp.55–9.

Goldberg, J.L., The misallocation of public money for both public and private transport infrastructure.

Gössling, S., 2013. Urban transport transitions: Copenhagen, city of cyclists. Journal of Transport Geography, 33, pp.196–206.

Gotschi, T., 2011. Costs and benefits of bicycling investments in Portland, Oregon. Journal of physical activity & health, 8 Suppl 1(Suppl 1), pp.S49–

S58.

Götschi, T., Garrard, J. & Giles-Corti, B., 2015. Cycling as a Part of Daily Life: A Review of Health Perspectives. Transport Reviews, 1647(September),

pp.1–27.

Halskov, K. & Dalsgård, P., 2006. Inspiration card workshops. Proceedings of the 6th conference on Designing Interactive systems, pp.2–11.

Huizinga, J., 1955. Homo ludens : a study of the play-element in culture., Bos-

ton : Beacon Press, 1955.

Hunicke, R., LeBlanc, M. & Zubek, R., 2004. MDA: A formal approach to game design and game research. In Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Challenges in Game AI.

Johnson, M., 2011. Cyclist safety: an investigation of how cyclists and drivers interact on the roads.

Jones, J.C., 1979. Designing designing. Design Studies, 1(1), pp.31–35.

Kim, Y.-H. & Lee, J.-H., 2015. Game interface enhancement under smartphone platform focused on touchscreen interaction. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 80, pp.45–61.

Lee, A. & March, A., 2010. Recognising the economic role of bikes: sharing parking in Lygon Street, Carlton. Australian Planner, 47(2), pp.85–93.

Lerner, J., 2014. Making Democracy Fun: How Game Design Can Empower Citi-zens and Transform Politics.

Lugo, A.E., 2010. Planning for Diverse Use / rs : Ethnographic Research on

Bikes , Bodies , and Public Space in LA. Kroeber Anthropological Society,

101(1), pp.49–65.

O’Connor, D., Nix, J. & Bradshaw, S., 2011. Shopping Travel Behaviour in Dublin City Centre. Proceedings of the Irish Transport Research Network Confer-ence 2011.

Oak, J.W. & Bae, J.H., 2014. Development of Smart Multiplatform Game App using UNITY3D Engine for CPR Education. International Journal of Multi-media and Ubiquitous Engineering VO - 9, (7), p.263.

Pelletier, C. & Kneebone, R., 2015. Playful Simulations Rather Than Serious Games: Medical Simulation as a Cultural Practice. Games and Culture,

pp.1–25.

Popan, C., 2015a. MAMILS, segregation and the carbon “racers”. The British cycling’s journey towards inclusive “body-city-machine” assemblages.

In Intellectual Party | Summer Conference, At Department of Sociology,

Lancaster University.

Popan, C., 2015b. Mobile and interdisciplinary methods . Reporting from the saddle. Ethnography Now: Making, Doing and Selling Ethnography in the

21st Century, At Manchester.

Pucher, J., Buehler, R. & Seinen, M., 2011. Bicycling renaissance in North Amer-

ica? An update and re-appraisal of cycling trends and policies. Transpor-tation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 45(6), pp.451–475.

Ratto, M., 2014. Textual doppelgangers: Critical issues in the story of tech-

nology. In M. Ratto & M. Boler, eds. DIY citizenship : critical making and social media. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Mit Press.

Rockwell, G.M. & Kee, K., 2014. The Leisure of Serious Games: A Dialogue. the international journal of computer game research, 11(2).

Rojas-Rueda, D. et al., 2011. The health risks and benefits of cycling in urban environments compared with car use: health impact assessment study.

BMJ, 343(aug04 2), pp.d4521–d4521.

Salen, K. & Zimmerman, E., 2004. Rules of play : game design fundamentals., Cambridge, Mass. ; London : MIT Press, c2004.

Sanders, R.L., 2015. Perceived traffic risk for cyclists: The impact of near miss and collision experiences. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 75, pp.26–34.

Sengers, P. et al., 2005. Reflective Design. 4th decennial conference on Criti-cal computing: between sense and sensibility, pp.49–58.

Steffen P. Walz, S.D. ed., 2015. The Gameful World: Approaches, Issues, Appli-cations, The MIT Press.

275

Teschke, K. et al., 2012. Bicycling: Health Risk or Benefit? University of British Columbia Medical Journal, 3(March), pp.6–11.

Thackara, J., 2005. In the bubble : designing in a complex world., Cambridge,

Mass. : MIT Press, c2005.

Westerlund, B., 2009. Design Space Exploration : co-operative creation of pro-posals for desired interactions with future artefacts,

Whittemore, a. H., 2014. Phenomenology and City Planning. Journal of Plan-ning Education and Research, 34(3), pp.301–308.

Wood, J., 2008. Changing the Change: A Fractal Framework for Metadesign. Changing the Change Design, Visions, Proposals and Tools, p.8.

Woods, S., 2004. Loading the dice: The challenge of serious videogames. Game Studies, 4(1).

Wylie, S.A. et al., 2014. Institutions for Civic Technoscience: How Critical Mak-

ing is Transforming Environmental Research. The Information Society,

30(2), pp.116–126.

Zielke, M. a. et al., 2009. Serious Games for Immersive Cultural Training: Creating a Living World. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 29(2),

pp.49–60.

urbangaming

tooL kit

Redesigning the design process for more

creative output (from both participants

and designers)

The Urban Gaming Toolkit amplifies collaborative design through the creation of games. This toolkit is intended for designers wanting to make a codesign process focused on finding novel opportunities with stakeholders in difficult situations. Engaging through play can generate the unexpected outcomes needed for stalemate conditions.

279

You have a problem that you cannot just ‘fix’. Where does design come in?

Embracing codesign means recognising that

architectural and urban issues cannot be solved by

individual designers operating in isolation. Cities

are complex, involving an overwhelming number

of conflicts and unknowns. Rather than ‘fixing’ a problem, designers can help create the productive

spaces which support the social activities needed

for change.

The Urban Gaming Toolkit explores the use of

games as collaborative artefacts designers can

situate in codesign activities. The toolkit will

help you design ‘productive lab space’, letting

designers and participants move away from

existing conceptions around a problem to creating

something new.

How can design move me away from existing assumptions?

Traditional design techniques such as architectural renders are representational, meaning designers

produce a description of traits already known.

Games, on the other hand, are based on an

alternative structure known as simulation.

Simulations allow designers and stakeholders

to interact with a dynamic system. By making

productive lab spaces with games, problems can

be constructed in a way that lets both stakeholders

and designers explore and test.

Well-designed games move stakeholders away from

being passive participants in a design process to

active players.

Outcomes resulting from the creation of active players may be the production of knowledge or

ideas; a reduction of ignorance; or collaboration between previously hostile stakeholders.

281

How should this toolkit be used?

How can designers design the unknown? This

toolkit will help you.

The Urban Gaming Toolkit will give you strategies

for three phases of a workshop: activating,

levelling and then need generation.

You’ll have to consider the experiences, values

and emotions stakeholders will be bringing to the

workshop. How can games be made immersive so

stakeholders can experience the new perspectives

you are showing them, yet still be flexible to

encourage players to contribute things themselves?

Though you design the artefacts creating a

simulation, the experiences participants gain; and the output these artefacts make; are unknown. How will your design process respond effectively to the

novel experiences generated from your games?

This metagame must also be designed.

You’ll need to select your sites; physical (where will

the workshop be held?) virtual (what simulations

will I create?) and hybrid (what artefacts do I need

to design?).

You’ll want to record the ‘output’ your lab produces.

This output is not made once at the end but rather

actively created throughout the workshop. You’ll

need effective data generation methods so you can

capture this output for future use.

What the Urban Gaming Toolkit won't doDon’t expect your workshop participants to come up with immediately implementable ideas through your design games – that’s not their job.

283

Instead, the Urban Gaming Toolkit creates spaces where you can generate unexpected outcomes, challenging both you and stakeholders. This lets you design change in participants. It’s then up to you as a designer to use this change effectively.

Challenges and omissions The Urban Gaming Toolkit is a prototype; a limited ‘taste’ of how urban gaming can be applied to the design process. The toolkit is to be expanded; modified and critiqued.

Due to time constraints, the toolkit was developed through a limited amount of testing (primarily through one workshop event with stakeholders who mostly knew each other).

Each time a workshop is run, knowledge is gained not just around the issue to be explored but about the urban gaming codesign process itself. Lessons learnt from running this workshop will be applied to future urban gaming labs; which then generate new strategies for the toolkit. Using games for more focused idea generation, and testing the processes on more diverse stakeholders are areas to be explored in future urban gaming workshops.

285

setup

min

d

sets

289

Players, not participantsAn activated audience is critical for success.

Research shows when people are ‘activated,’ they

are likely to be bolder, sweep aside inhibitions,

challenge the status quo and propose new ideas. Specifically, you want to create these mindsets in participants:

Surprise

Focus

Legitimacy

Reflection

Competition

Unproductive attitudes:Interactive activities are powerful. However,

specific design strategies should be implemented to avoid the following mindsets, which create less

productive spaces:

Intimidation

Conflict

Disinterest

sites

291

The physical Where will I hold my workshop?

All workshops occur in spaces. Most occur in rooms. When using design games, ensure spaces do more than just accommodate group activates. Run activities in places large enough to be divided into multiple areas; allow plenty of room to bleed activities into each other. This allows multiple activities to be run in parallel. You will use more space than you think.

Physical space should facilitate your activities, not

fight them. Adequate light and low background noise is crucial for better data capture. Consider

comfort in participants: too hot a space and

participants will quickly tire and disengage. Refreshments (pizza, beer, etc) are great bribes for

concentration.

Physical space can also be employed to reengage

an audience. Use of multiple spaces, (eg moving

rooms, inside and outside) can be an effective

strategy to break up activities, giving participants

a chance to engage in micro-discussions,

reshuffle and refresh themselves.

The Virtual What games will I create?

Electronic games enable participants to explore any site in the safety and comfort of a workshop setting. Sites where familiarity with the location is unevenly distributed across participants, or sites that are dangerous, or even difficult to access, all can easily be interrogated through games.Gameplay needs to be easily broken up so it is flexible for your activities and for participants. Multiple short periods of play are more suited for use in workshops than long unstructured play/s

Many participants will be unfamiliar with games,

making it even more important that virtual spaces

are made approachable for all. They should not rely

on gaming conventions that may be obvious to you,

but unclear to a non-gamer. Menus, HUDs (heads up

displays) and complex controls should be avoided.

To ensure non-gaming participants can actively

contribute to activities, have strategies available to

assist these participants (Participatory Navigation,

Self-Reporting).

The interactivity of electronic games means as a

designer, you have less control of your artefacts

than in representational design. Trial games

consistently on a diverse set of people. You will

need a constant supply of test players who have

never played your game to ensure the experience

of playing for the first time (‘getting used to the game’) won’t be an unsurmountable barrier.

293

HybridWhat artefacts do I need to design?

Virtual sites work best when they are considered situated games in physical space. Participants do not ‘play’ your simulations directly. Rather, they interact with the tangible artefacts you design. Through artefacts, you design the conditions of play.

Consider the physical experience of all games.

Paper props are easily blown away, or mixed up and

lost. Electronic props may intimidate participants.

(Simulation)

sim UL AT

ION

sim UL AT

ION

sim

ulatio

n

type

297

All games are simulations.Simulation is a process of simplifying. A scenario is broken down into a designed set of rules and starting conditions that react to player ‘input’ to producing new things (output).

By defining a scenario as a set of rules, participants approach a messy, complex problem through a clear, structured framework of a game. By playing the game, players can experimentally interact with a dynamic system to produce novel experiences.

This means though a designer creates the conditions of a simulation, she only indirectly shapes a player’s experience of it. This indirect design is a useful tool for generating unexpected outcomes.

Electronic simulationsElectronic simulations are videogames. They are

often high fidelity, and immersive, describing experiences much more explicitly than cardboard

simulation.

In the context of this toolkit, electronic simulations

are best used when there is a need to explore a

site in real-time, or when participant input needs

an immediate response. For example, electronic simulations are useful in exploring problems arising

through contrasting speeds different stakeholders

navigate through an area.

EXAMPLE Performance Chunking

Performance chunking is a simulation approach

that breaks down a site into the series of tasks, or

processes, that operate / are experienced in it.

Consider a simulation of cycling. A designer can

break down a scenario into the tasks needed to

ride: movement, navigation, hazard avoidance,

infrastructure detection. By playing the game,

players can explore the impacts of these tasks.

Performance chunking lets a designer draw

attention to the relationships between objects,

rather than just the physical objects themselves.

Nested Performance Chunking also be used as a

participatory technique itself – (see Participatory Navigation).

299

Cardboard computingCardboard computing creates simulation out of

physical props. Cardboard simulations can be

effective strategies in their own right, rather than

being considered mock-ups of future electronic

simulations.

Card games and board games all run through

cardboard computing. Through ‘cardboard’ props,

run-time conditions are created (a game’s rules),

‘input’ is processed (how someone plays the game)

and ‘output’ generated (the consequences of a player’s action).

For the purpose of this toolkit, all non-electronic games are considered ‘cardboard’. In urban

gaming, mock interviews, roleplays etc often are

augmented with card-based props.

Cardboard simulation is less immersive than

electronic (cards are a much more abstract

representation than a videogame’s world) but are

very quick to create and extend.

EXAMPLE:Block Chunking

Block chunking breaks a scenario down into a series

of discrete concept ‘blocks’. These blocks can

physically be made through paper cards for players

to interact with (see Cards).

There are two parts of a block: the element of the

situation the block represents, as well as how it can

influence other blocks.

Continuing the example of cycling, blocks can

create a simulation of riding. This framework would

include a rider block (a character, for example,

Mark), a setting block (a risky ride) and a series of

moment blocks on the ride (images of experiences

of cycling).

Important in block chunking is ensuring concept

blocks are interoperable with each other. This lets

participants test out new combinations. Various

blocks can create the starting conditions of the

simulation (‘character’ and ‘ride scenario’ blocks)

which players must satisfy with other blocks (a

string of ‘moment blocks’ creating a ride meeting

these conditions).

Block chunking is an effective strategy for unifying

a series of separate concepts into a framework

where participants can combine them into

something new. For example, cycling moments from separate physical locations can be made into

personal ‘journeys’ that combine different cycling

infrastructure in interesting/novel ways.

301

sim

ulatio

n

taxonomy

303

The following parameters define the conditions of your simulation. Optimising your games with these in mind will create conditions that have the most chance of producing useful results.

FidelityHow many defined rules are there in the simulation?

This determines a game’s fidelity. While fidelity does not necessarily produce complexity (is

chess less complex than Counterstrike?), higher

fidelity simulations are usually required for more immersive experiences. Lower fidelity simulations abstract and simplify.

The higher the fidelity of a simulation, the more effort its design requires, as the creation of many more rules is necessary.

FlexibilityHow flexible are the ‘rules’ governing the game to participants at run-time?

More rigid games have defined rules that cannot be changed by players. Rigid simulations generate

responses mostly known by the designer, while

flexible simulations are more open to player interpretation, and so generate a diverse range of

potentially unforseen outcomes.

Flexibility allows a simulation to be modified at run-time (when a game/simulation is ‘played’). This

allows rules to be tweaked if the elements are found

too difficult by participants. Rigid simulations cannot be modified, and so cannot be ‘updated’ as easily.

305

ImmersionHow much ‘computing’ does a simulation undertake for participants at run-time?

Videogames are immersive simulations, where

most of the experience of playing one is offloaded to the computer and so does not need to be

considered by the player. In codesign games, this

‘offloading’ defines immersion, not how realistic a simulation is.

Enacted scenarios are less immersive simulations; participants ‘generate’ runtime conditions

themselves. Immersive simulations can be

employed to explore complex environments, as

the game takes care of much of the complexity for

participants.

This ‘offloading to the computer’ means immersive simulations are of a higher fidelity and are usually more rigid (rules being less discretionary by

participants) unless explicitly designed as flexible (see sandbox games such as Minecraft). Immersive

yet flexible simulations require large amounts of time to create as singular games (all the flexible conditions must be described in rules designed

before the simulation is run) and are usually

outside the scope of design games.

AuthorityDoes the game’s design create an experience that empowers participants to challenge assumptions made in the simulation’s creation?

An example of an authoritative simulation is traffic modelling, frequently used as evidence. Realism in games often conveys authority to participants.

In codesign gaming, simulations should be

authoritative enough to generate believable

outcomes by participants, but still encourage

critique and debate.

ResponsivenessHow responsive is a game to participant input?

Immediate consequences to player interaction give participants a vested interest in paying close

attention to the game. Responsiveness enables

players to focus and run ideas through the rules of

the game (simple, fun, achievable), while not being

overwhelmed by the complexities and requirements of the real world.

Where consequences in a simulation are too high, players may fear failure, and participant

contribution is negatively impacted.

307

(Methods)

me th OD S

me th OD S

activ

at

ing

311

Methods for activivating a workshop audienceAn activated audience is imporant for any codesign activity. Research shows when people engage with an issue they become ‘activated’: becoming bolder, sweeping aside inhibitions, and challenging the status quo.

Each game should have the higher goal of making a collaborative, engaged environment for discussion and idea generation.

GlimpsesPeople are naturally cautious. In order for participants to productively engage in design games, they need to be warmed up.

Your first activities should make participants feel comfortable in the space, readying them for more

interesting (and perhaps radical, or confrontational)

activities. One method you can use is ‘glimpses’: short, structured introductions to the virtual

environments you’ll be using later on. This exposes

participants to complexity without forcing them to

interact with it.

Warm up games can strategically introduce

your interactive experience through traditional

representational means (images from game,

sounds used). Warm up games should have minimal

barriers for participation.

EXAMPLE: IDENTIFICATION QUIZ

If codesign games represent a real world place participants know, a quiz can be made from in-game screenshots that participants must identify. This establishes a link between the virtual world, real world and the workshop, and begins to create a common workshop frame.

313

Mock InterviewsUse mock interviews as a framework for stakeholders to get to know each other.

Mock interviews establish a collaborative

framework to be developed between participants

from a diverse set of backgrounds.

Divide workshop members into small groups

and direct participants to ask specific questions about their partner. This gives participants a basis

for beginning a conversation with their fellow

workshop members.

Vested Interests as collective framingcreates conditions for collaboration.

Scoring is an easy way to create vested interest.

The workshop group can be scored as a collective,

or as individuals. This shifts participant focus away

from themselves, and towards the introductory

activity, through good-natured collaboration and

competition.

level

lin

g

315

Methods for leveling stakeholders through simulationIntegrating stakeholders with varying backgrounds, values and competencies participatory processes can be difficult.

Games can help.

Breaking down complexitySimulation is an effective way to reduce ignorance in stakeholders.

Games create a simplified version of reality readily approachable by participants. The interactive

nature of simulation means participants can

explore the interlinked elements of an issue

through a structured framework.

Simulations are ‘labs’ where participants can both

understand parameters and see consequences at run time. Design issues that need a systems or

ecology based approach (assemblages of many

interlinked elements) are well suited for simulation.

Feedback mechanismsFeedback mechanisms make Magic circles

Artificial systems of cause and effect in games create a protective space for participants. Players can concentrate on the rules and consequences of the game, rather than focusing on (and becoming intimidated by) the issue in reality.

This is known as the ‘magic circle’, a protective

space where players are spared the physical

consequences of their actions. By making magic circles, designers create safe spaces where

participants can test out ideas without worrying

about failure.

This testing allows participants to engage in self-

discovery, finding out new things themselves rather than passively being told. This personal learning

is effective at challenging preconceived ideas in

participants.

317

Collective framingPlay creates collective framing.

Through the creation of magic circles, play makes an issue non-serious and seem surmountable.

Using play in codesign activities creates a shared

frame of reference in participants. Stakeholders

become players, only needing to learn the rules

of the game to make active contribution (magic

circles). Play creates a common language

participants can use, letting stakeholders with

different backgrounds, values and experiences

work productively together.

Competition = TriangulationCompetition = TriangulationGames allow opposing stakeholders to engage with each other in a non-confrontational manner.

Playful competition in workshop activities

lets stakeholders interact with each other in a

structured, safe framework. Participant focus can

be drawn away from personal gripes with other

stakeholders, to engaging with the rules of the

game.

Designing readily describable results (see

Quantified Outcomes) make this play collaborative. Participants triangulate on comparing results of

their play, rather than focusing directly on each

other.

INCOM

PLETE

GAMIN

G

319

Methods for Metagaming: creating participant needs through incomplete gaming:Metagaming is the codesign process a game is embedded in. Situating games in a responsive design process allows the novel experiences your games create to be made into a productive process of need generation.

Needs aren’t simply ‘found’ by a designer. They must be actively imagined and created by stakeholders.

Without a process of need creation, stakeholders may simply repeat characteristics of the environment they already know, rather than imagine new things.

Games as assemblageGames as part of an assemblage of codesign

A single perfect game does not have to achieve everything in a workshop. Instead, use fidelity to your advantage.

Simulation can be made with varying degrees of

fidelity. Aim to use a combination of low and high fidelity activities/artefacts to efficiently generate desired outcomes.

High fidelity games have advantages in terms of the immersive and complex experiences they

support. However, designing high fidelity games takes effort and technical skill. Low fidelity games are easy to create and are flexible.

Rather than using games as discrete objects to

be playtested, embed them in codesign activities.

Consider games part of a ‘constellation’ of

artefacts that augment each other. A lower fidelity cardboard computing game (refer Cardboard

computing) can make participants aware of

the breadth of experiences around an issue. A

subsequent higher fidelity electronic game enables participants to explore a segment of it in detail. In

further cardboard activities, participants can apply

the knowledge they have gained to a broader range

of areas.

321

NestingNesting games to create contingent, immersive experiences

Nesting extends the concept of embedding game artefacts by ‘inserting’ one game (a high fidelity game, electronic) into another (a lower fidelity game, cardboard).

Through nesting, designers and participants

can insert new rules for play in the electronic

game through a cardboard game. This allows an

electronic game to be extended with minimal effort.

For example, participants can be directed via instruction cards to play a videogame like a specific person, or with a certain attitude.

The electronic game is then made more

contingents. New rules can be inserted into the

videogame, participant attention can be drawn

to particular elements of simulation, all without

modifying code. Through nesting, participants can

even ‘mod’ the game itself (creating new conditions

for play, etc).

Participatory NavigationUse Participatory Navigation to collectively play a one player simulation

Participatory Navigation nests a videogame (Game One) into a cardboard computing game (Game Two).

The ‘player’, a participant more confident in gaming, plays a high fidelity simulation on a large screen. The rest of workshop participants spectate.

This is Game One.

Game One is then ‘nested’ into a card game, Game Two. Spectators each receive a ‘Brain’ card

instructing them in a task they must do. Each task

is an element of playing Game One: navigation, speed, setting risk level. The ‘player’ then must play

Game One following the instructions of the group ‘Brain’ (Game Two).

Participatory Navigation is effective strategy for

exposing participants to more difficult simulations.

323

Metagaming through Playful simulationUse playful simulation as a design method to generate informed debate

A playful simulation exposes value judgements

made in a game as non-natural (that is, decided by

the designer) and fallible. Parameters often hidden

from the player in the black box of a simulation are

highlighted as artificial through exaggerated, non-realistic representation. At the same time, these

simulations still project the confidence needed for participants to explore ideas in an immersive

experience.

This critique can be used as a method for exploring an issue without the need for a game that ‘covers’

everything. Further activities – ‘the metagame’ - can use the informed debate generated from

playful simulations as input.

(Artifacts)

Art IFA CTS

Art IFA CTS

thin

g

props

327

‘Thing’ props are physical parts of a game. These can be made from cardboard with scissors or with sophisticated digital tools.

Premade CardsPremade cards are great devices to make a quick framework for a game. They let a designer provoke: exposing participants to new ideas, giving them something to react to and starting conversations.

More importantly, cards give designers a tool

to make tangible ‘blocks’ of a concept readily

approachable. Participants can then interact with

these ‘blocks,’ an easy way to create a low fidelity simulation.

As these ‘blocks’ are interoperable (cards can

easily be placed next to each other), different sets

of cards can be combined for more sophisticated

analysis. For example, a ‘scenario’ card and a ‘location’ card can establish a game’s starting

conditions. Players can ‘play’ the simulation by

stringing subsequent ‘event’ cards together to react to these initial conditions.

Card based simulations are flexible and easily extended by simply printing more pieces of paper.

Blank CardsBlank cards that participants fill out personalise a cardboard simulation. Participants can write their

own conditions/rules that can be inserted into the

game.

This helps make a contingent simulation that

moves away from a designer’s preconceived, initial

ideas.

329

VirtualVirtual props are the objects creating the

videogame. Through interacting with these

objects, participants ‘experience’ a scenario in

real-time. This can be useful for allowing one set

of stakeholders to discover what a situation is like

for another set of stakeholders, or in describing an

environment that is different (speed/time/scales) to

the workshop setting.

SmartphonesSmartphones are now powerful enough to support

immersive game worlds; running even inefficient ones made by amateur coders.

The devices are useful for ‘situating’ virtual space

in the physical room of a workshop. Phones are

plentiful and already familiar to participants, and

allow videogames to be inserted into workshop

activities with lots of flexibility (Refer 3.8).

ProjectionBy projecting a participant playing a smartphone

game onto a larger screen, an individual mobile

game can be transformed into a group play activity

(Refer Set Two: Participatory Navigation).

Do props

331

‘Do’ props are strategies for interaction you as a designer can deploy in activities. They are the rules and conditions that define the emergent outcomes of playing your game.

Quantified outcomesOutcomes emerge from participants playing your game. They are a game’s response to participant

input. In electronic simulations, there will be

millions of outcomes generated each second.

Quantified outcomes are the responses you deem important to show a participant. These occur both

during play (ie. scoring and health) and after play.

For example, a game may assess a participant’s play as ‘safe’ or ‘dangerous.’

As they are calculated based on a participant

interaction, quantified outcomes are personal and engaging. They give participants a method

for assessing play, encouraging the trial of novel

strategies. The discrete assessment units created

allow participants to compare their inputs in a

game.

Quantified outcomes encourage participants to think about certain aspects of an issue. Through

humour and provocation, a designer can design

outcomes to prompt participants to recognise

how a game has challenged them. This is a useful

resource for codesign activities.

333

ScoresScores are the most basic of quantified outcomes. Scoring is stackable and dynamically adjusted,

giving players a real time method of assessing play.

The ‘gameness’ inherent in high scores creates

a non-confrontational vector for participants to

compare and collaborate outcomes.

WarningsWarnings are audio/visual game responses

triggered by participant input. Warnings let a

simulation guide a player, informing them of the

desired method of play. This serves a practical

purpose, partially relieving you of having to

manage each participant’s interaction with the

game. Warnings can be explicit (a flashing graphic appearing on-screen) or implicit (a change in the

tone of music, a sound effect).

Warnings do not have to be fair or authoritative. A

game can force a participant down a particular path

and berate them for ending there, demonstrating

unfair situations from real life. Warnings do not

have to influence gameplay – a sudden overload of them can simulate social pressure, or sensory

overload.

DATA

335

Data collection methods influence the data you will generate. There are lots of traditional methods for collecting data in participatory activities, most in the form of questionnaires undertaken after the fact. While these are certainly useful for analysis, surveys can also be limiting.

Questionnaires can be too rigid, or vague, for participants to answer insightfully. Responses will also be biased; participants want to give you the answers they think you want to hear. This makes it harder for you to gauge the real effects of your activities.

Data is generatedDon’t think of data as being passively collected.

Instead, think of it being generated. Your activities

are trying to create unexpected outcomes; so too should your data generation. Below are some

methods that aim to generate unfiltered, immediate data for you to use. These methods do not

replace, but rather augment, more traditional data

collection methods.

Record everythingThough many of your activities will have individual

goals and data collection methods, game artefacts

generate debate.

Rather then relying on participant reflection as your primary source of data, these immediate

and unfiltered reactions, comments and quips are incredibly useful for later analysis.

This discussion will bleed through discrete

workshop activities. Set up a camera in a corner of

the room than can record the entire workshop so

these spontaneous reactions, debates and ideas

can be captured.

337

Roving camerasEmploy helpers with additional cameras ready

to zoom in on interesting moments in activities.

Some parts of the workshop will be more useful

than other parts. A certain group may produce

interesting outcomes in one activity, while a second

may have really interesting responses in another.

If activities have been planned well, you won’t know

what will emerge. Getting someone else to be in

charge of capturing interesting bits allows you to

concentrate on running the workshop.

Have a camera/phone at hand ready to record

things yourself though. Your helpers take the

base-load effort of recording off you, but they may

occasionally miss something.

Prompt reactionsMore immediate data can also be gathered by

employing helpers to interview participants

throughout the workshop. Your activities will be

fun and strange; it can be illuminating hearing participant thoughts moments after they have

played your games.

Prep your helpers before the workshop about

the goals of each activity you plan to run. They’ll

then be more informed and confident in asking participants questions. Don’t, however, make these interviews too formal. Helpers should encourage

immediate, off-the-cuff remarks from participants.

Questions like ‘I know, how weird are these activities? I just got roped in’ generate interesting

and insightful responses from participants.

Situating reportsFilling out reports/surveys should be considered as a strategy for actively creating conditions

in activities, rather than just as passive data

gathering.

Reports can be used to define metagame conditions. One participant can ‘assess’ another participant’s play in a guided structure by filling out a report you have designed.

The questionnaire isn’t the end product – rather the collaborative focus and debate generated from this

assessment is what is interesting.

339

Combine your dataBy merging less-interesting pieces of data together,

you can gain insights from data you otherwise

might discard. For example, data generated in game such as scores may not be useful on its own, but

is very insightful when compared with stakeholder

background (ie.seeing how each type of participant

plays your game). Think of these ‘synergies’

beforehand so you are ready to collect them.

Follow upsWorkshop activities don’t just effect participants

on the day. Check in on individuals at a later date

to see any longer lasting impacts the workshop

may have had on them. Stakeholder participants

will have had time to reflect and compare their experience in the workshop with their view on the

design problem in reality.

Comparing responses from the night to reflections even only a week later can reveal interesting things.

now it's

up to you

341

By creating a workshop lab space, you’ve hopefully generated some unexpected outcomes that you didn’t know before.

Your workshop participants won’t generate immediately implementable ideas – that’s not their job.

Instead, these outcomes can be fed back into your design process (ie. new methods for reducing conflict in stakeholders can be developed, strategies to respond to novel needs that were identified made).

One urban gaming workshop won’t be enough. As you’re looking to create the unexpected, you’ll have learnt many things you could do better next time simply having run the workshop.

Feed this new knowledge back into your urban games. You now know what parameters need tweaking to make an even more productive space in your next workshop.

343

DEV ELOP MENT

ST kilda Junction trial

dynamics prototyping

render testing

copenhagen Tutorial mode

night mode

comic violence

google cardboard vr mode

First person perspective

move phone in physical space

moves camera in virtual space

appendix workshop

RESPONSeS

Did

the

expe

rien

ce o

f pl

ayin

g th

e ga

me

mak

e yo

u no

tice

feat

ures

of

expe

rien

ces

of S

t. K

ilda

Roa

d yo

u ha

ve n

ot n

otic

ed

befo

re?

Des

crib

e.

How

wou

ld s

he e

xper

ienc

e of

St.

Kild

a R

oad

as s

een

in th

e vi

deo

and

as a

ga

me?

Did

you

thin

k th

at th

e ga

me

cont

ribu

ted

to th

e co

mm

unic

atio

n be

twee

n di

ffer

ent

type

s of

Roa

d us

ers?

Giv

e ex

ampl

es.

Ye

s.

Th

e d

isc

on

tin

uo

us

na

tu

re

of t

he

bik

e l

an

e a

nd

bik

e b

ox

es

. E

sp

ec

iall

y n

orth

of C

om

me

rc

ial

Ro

ad

co

mp

ara

ble

Ye

s.

Pe

op

le w

ho

pla

y t

he

ga

me

ne

ed

to

sh

ift t

he

ir

min

ds

ets

to

dif

fe

re

nt u

se

rs

No

no

t p

artic

ula

rly

, b

ut a

fter

whe

n ri

ding

the

sam

e ro

ute

I was

ver

y co

nsci

ous

of h

ow th

is p

art

look

ed in

the

gam

e an

d m

ore

elem

ents

that

wer

e in

flue

ncin

g w

hy th

is s

ecti

on o

f th

e ro

ad w

as

part

icul

arily

bad

. In

part

icul

ar th

e pa

rt in

fro

nt

of th

e po

lice

stat

ion

Ye

s,

we

we

re

ab

le t

o d

isc

us

s t

he

pa

rts

of t

he

ro

ad

an

d

I was

sur

pris

ed b

y el

emen

ts th

at R

oad

driv

ers

find

di

fficu

lt, l

ike

the

ambi

guit

y of

whe

re th

ey a

re to

go

in th

e in

ters

ecti

on w

ith

the

NG

V a

lso.

Ye

s,

I s

ta

rte

d t

o n

otic

e t

he

pa

rts

of t

he

stre

et t

ha

t

we

re

mo

re

ha

za

rd

ou

s a

nd

wh

y.

I thi

nk it

con

veys

a m

uch

light

er to

ne o

f w

hat S

t K

ilda

road

is li

ke b

ut th

at is

und

erst

anda

ble

as

the

real

thin

g is

a lo

t mor

e co

mpl

icat

ed

I th

ink

it h

elp

ed

th

em

un

de

rs

ta

nd

th

e o

bs

ta

cle

s o

f t

he

cy

cli

sts

, b

ut s

om

e o

f t

he

driv

ers

sc

en

ario

s w

ere

ov

er-

ly d

ram

atic

and

did

n’t r

eflec

t the

cau

se a

nd a

ffec

t d

riv

ers

are

als

o s

ub

jec

t t

o d

ue

to

th

e o

th

er 2

ty

pe

s o

f

co

mm

ute

rs

I thi

nk I

was

mos

tly

awar

e of

the

part

icul

ar fe

a-tu

res

of S

t Kild

a R

oad

- for

cyc

lists

and

dri

vers

. W

hat I

had

n’t n

otic

ed a

s m

uch

was

the

regu

lari

ty

and

inte

nsit

y of

whi

ch th

ese

haza

rds

can

occu

r -

and

all a

t the

sam

e ti

me.

I fo

un

d t

he

vid

eo

, w

ith

ju

st t

he

fo

rw

ard

lo

ok

ing

le

ns

- h

ard

er t

o a

na

lys

e.

Th

e s

pe

ed

at w

hic

h t

he

cy

cli

st

wa

s g

oin

g d

idn

’t h

elp

. T

he

ga

me

ho

we

ve

r w

as

ea

sie

r t

o t

ak

e i

n, a

s y

ou

co

uld

se

e o

nc

om

ing

ca

rs

an

d d

eta

ile

d f

ea

tu

re

s o

f S

t K

ild

a R

oa

d.

I thi

nk th

e ga

me

defi

nite

ly c

omm

unic

ates

mes

sage

s to

driv

ers

- b

ut m

ay

be

no

t a

s m

uc

h t

he

oth

er w

ay

ro

un

d.

Vis

ibil

ity

[o

f c

yc

lis

ts

] i

s a

hu

ge

is

su

e a

s a

driv

er,

th

at c

ou

ld b

e a

dd

re

ss

ed

in

th

e g

am

e m

ore

.

Ca

r s

pe

ed

, d

ou

ble

pa

rk

ing

on

th

e b

ike

tra

ck

are

so

me

ex

am

ple

s o

f [

su

cc

es

sfu

l] c

om

mu

nic

atio

n t

o d

riv

ers

.

Ye

s s

om

e,

th

at I

co

uld

id

en

tif

y e

sp

ec

iall

y t

ru

ck

s

an

d c

ars

me

rg

e f

ro

m t

he

le

ft a

ro

un

d T

oo

ra

k R

oa

d

an

d t

he

wh

ole

pro

Ble

m o

f c

ars

stu

ck

in

fro

nt o

f y

ou

on

th

e b

ike

tra

ck

. P

erh

ap

s m

ore

em

ph

as

is c

ou

ld

be

pla

ce

d o

n d

an

ge

rs

ca

us

ed

by

oth

er c

yc

lis

ts

pa

ss

ing

by

on

th

e l

eft, o

r p

as

sin

g o

n t

he

rig

ht a

t

gre

at s

pe

ed

.

Th

e v

ide

o w

as

ve

ry

he

lpfu

l a

s i

t w

as

a ‘

re

al’

ex

pe

rie

nc

e a

s e

xp

erie

nc

ed

by

a b

ike

rid

er,

wit

h a

ll

th

e i

nte

rru

ptio

ns

ca

us

ed

by

ca

rs

, tru

ck

an

d o

th

er

cy

cli

sts

. T

he

ga

me

fo

r m

e w

as

to

o a

bs

tra

ct, I

ha

d

tro

ub

le i

de

ntif

yin

g w

he

re

I w

as

an

d t

hin

gs

ha

p-

pe

ne

d a

t t

oo

gre

at a

sp

ee

d t

o r

eg

iste

r m

ore

th

an

jus

t h

av

ing

to

us

e m

y w

its

to

av

oid

th

e b

arra

ge

of

da

ng

er h

urtli

ng

to

wa

rd

s m

e.

Ho

we

ve

r f

or s

om

eo

ne

wh

o w

as

us

ed

to

pla

yin

g p

ho

ne

ga

me

s, I

ca

n w

ell

imag

ine

it w

ould

be

a di

ffer

ent e

xper

ienc

e. F

or m

e,

ide

ntif

yin

g t

he

po

ss

ible

da

ng

ers

at t

he

be

gin

nin

g

an

d m

ay

be

ha

vin

g t

he

m w

ith

dis

tin

ct f

ea

tu

re

s (

eg

,

wh

en

a d

oo

r o

pe

ns

in

fro

nt o

f t

he

cy

cli

st h

av

e i

t

alw

ay

s b

ro

wn

), m

ore

ex

pla

na

tio

n n

ee

d a

bo

ut t

he

effe

ct it

has

and

defi

niti

ons.

I th

in t

o a

cc

ura

te

ly a

ns

we

r t

ha

t y

ou

wo

uld

ha

ve

to

surv

ey fr

eque

nt d

rive

rs o

f St K

idla

Roa

d -

or tr

uck

driv

ers.

I ca

n re

ally

onl

y co

mm

ent a

s a

freq

uent

cy-

cli

st.

Ha

ve

an

op

tio

n f

ro

m a

driv

er’s

po

int o

f y

ou

. A

lso

pe

de

stria

ns

are

an

oth

er g

ro

up

of u

se

rs

un

de

rre

pre

-

se

nte

d i

n t

he

ga

me

.

I h

ad

ne

ve

r n

otic

ed

th

e t

re

es

we

re

pin

k!

Wh

en

ac

-

tu

all

y r

idin

g y

ou

ha

ve

a p

ro

te

ctiv

e b

ub

ble

of h

op

e

- t

ha

t y

ou

ho

pe

th

at t

he

ca

rs

an

d t

ru

ck

s w

ill

av

oid

yo

u.

Th

e g

am

e r

em

ov

es

th

is c

om

fo

rtin

g a

ss

um

p-

tio

n a

nd

brin

gs

ho

me

th

e f

ac

e t

ha

t t

he

rid

ers

are

so

vu

lne

ra

ble

on

St K

ild

a R

oa

d

Th

e g

am

e i

s c

lea

rly

mo

re

fra

ntic

. T

he

co

ntro

ls

ov

er t

he

bik

e i

n t

he

ga

me

are

mu

ch

mo

re

se

ns

itiv

e

th

an

in

th

e v

ide

o.

Th

e v

ide

o w

as

mo

re

ho

rrif

yin

g

be

ca

us

e i

t w

as

a r

ea

l p

ers

on

. T

he

ga

me

all

ow

s f

or

mu

ltip

le e

xp

erie

nc

es

.

Th

e c

ars

we

re

ju

st i

mp

ers

on

al

me

ch

an

ica

l m

on

-

ste

rs

: b

loc

kin

g b

ike

pa

th

s, o

pe

nin

g d

oo

rs

, h

ittin

g

ride

rs fr

om b

ehin

d. A

ltho

ugh

I was

80%

mot

oris

t, (o

r p

erh

ap

s b

ec

au

se

I w

as

), I

go

t t

he

im

pre

ss

ion

th

at

driv

ers

we

re

th

e b

ad

gu

ys

! T

he

re

wa

s a

n o

pp

ortu

nit

y

to

ch

oo

se

se

ttin

gs

(-c

on

sid

era

te

/ e

du

ca

te

d d

riv

ers

[no

n a

gg

re

ss

ive

], -

se

ns

ible

rid

ers

) to

te

st w

he

th

er w

e

can

safe

ty a

nd e

ffici

entl

y sh

are

the

road

as

now

, or

w

he

th

er i

t i

s n

ec

es

sa

ry

to

ha

ve

fu

lly

se

pa

ra

te

d b

ike

lan

es

By

pla

yin

g t

he

ga

me

I e

xp

erie

nc

ed

vic

ario

us

ly t

he

feel

ing

of c

yclin

g on

St K

ilda

Rd.I

driv

e th

ere

quit

e o

fte

n b

ut h

av

e o

nly

rid

de

n m

y b

ike

fro

m P

ark

St t

o

th

e c

ity

wh

ich

do

es

no

t h

av

e t

he

bu

ild

up

of c

ars

as

it d

oe

s f

ro

m S

t K

ild

a J

un

ctio

n t

o T

oo

ra

k R

d.T

he

ga

me

sh

ow

ed

se

ve

ra

l c

ars

do

ub

le p

ark

ed

an

d a

lso

se

ve

ra

l w

ith

driv

er’s

se

at d

oo

r o

pe

n.

Th

is m

ad

e m

e

re

ali

ze

ho

w v

uln

era

ble

a c

yc

lis

t c

ou

ld b

e.

Th

e v

ide

o e

xp

erie

nc

e w

as

mu

ch

mo

re

“re

al”

th

an

th

e g

am

e.

I d

o n

ot t

hin

k t

ha

t t

he

ga

me

co

ntrib

ute

d t

o t

he

co

m-

mu

nic

atio

n b

etw

ee

n d

iffe

re

nt t

yp

es

of r

oa

d u

se

rs

. It

ce

rta

inly

hig

hli

gh

te

d a

re

as

th

at s

ho

uld

be

dis

cu

ss

ed

in r

ela

tio

n t

o r

es

pe

ct a

nd

ad

he

re

nc

e t

o r

oa

d r

ule

s

be

tw

ee

n t

he

dif

fe

re

nt r

oa

d u

se

rs

.

I w

as

ma

de

aw

are

of t

he

da

ng

ers

of b

ike

pa

th

s i

n

pa

rtic

ula

r w

ith

re

ga

rd

to

do

orin

g, a

nd

als

o w

he

n

the

lane

tem

pora

rily

fini

shes

a r

ea

lis

tic

im

pre

ss

ion

of t

he

to

ils

of b

oth

driv

er a

nd

cycl

ist b

attl

ing

inef

fici

ent p

lann

ing

I th

ink

as

a m

ain

ly d

riv

er t

yp

e p

ers

on

,I

ha

ve

be

en

mad

e aw

are

of th

e di

fficu

ltie

s en

coun

tere

d by

c

yc

lis

ts

No

t r

ea

lly,

it w

as

a l

ittle

to

o a

bs

tra

ct t

o n

otic

e

an

yth

ing

co

nc

re

te

.

Th

ey

are

bo

th

ve

ry

in

te

ns

e!

I th

ink

th

e a

tm

os

ph

ere

is v

ery

sim

ila

r.

I th

ink

it c

ap

tu

re

d t

he

an

imo

sit

y b

etw

ee

n b

ike

rid

ers

an

d c

ar d

riv

ers

.

ye

s:

su

dd

en

dis

ap

pe

ara

nc

e o

f b

ike

la

ne

be

ca

me

mo

re

no

tic

ea

ble

du

e t

o s

co

rin

g s

ys

te

m (

ev

en

th

ou

gh

I h

av

e r

idd

en

th

is r

ou

te

an

d n

otic

ed

th

is

be

fo

re

).

gam

e is

a lo

t fas

ter a

nd th

e ch

arac

ter i

s qu

ite

larg

e c

om

pa

re

d t

o t

he

en

vir

on

me

nt, s

o t

he

ro

ad

se

em

s

smal

ler a

nd th

e ca

rs c

lose

r. so

it k

ind

of a

mpl

ifies

/e

xa

gg

era

te

s t

he

re

al

ex

pe

rie

nc

e.

th

e g

am

e w

as

a g

re

at l

ev

ell

er,

wit

h d

riv

ers

an

d

cy

cli

sts

me

etin

g i

n m

ore

ne

utra

l g

ro

un

d (

th

e g

am

e i

s

no

t a

n e

xa

ct s

imu

latio

n o

f c

yc

lin

g, s

o m

ay

be

it d

idn

’t

se

em

as

th

re

ate

nin

g/to

ha

ve

a s

tro

ng

pro

-c

yc

lin

g

ag

en

da

**

so

driv

ers

we

re

no

t p

ut o

ff).

Ye

s,

th

e g

am

e d

id m

ak

e m

e a

wa

re

of f

ea

tu

re

s o

f

St.

Kil

da

ro

ad

th

at I

ha

d n

ot n

otic

ed

pre

vio

us

ly.

As

I a

m n

ot a

cy

cli

st, I

wa

s n

ot a

wa

re

of t

he

nu

me

ro

us

traf

fic

haza

rds

in th

e ar

ea a

nd th

e la

ck o

f spa

ce

th

ey

ha

ve

av

ail

ab

le t

o r

ide

sa

fe

ly.

2.

I a

m n

ot r

ea

lly

th

at f

am

ilia

r w

ith

St K

ild

a r

oa

d

bu

t a

s a

driv

er,

th

e o

nly

th

ing

th

at I

ca

n r

ea

lly

co

mm

en

t o

n i

s t

ha

t t

he

re

are

a l

ot o

f p

ark

ed

ca

rs

,

wh

ich

in

cre

as

es

th

e p

os

sib

ilit

y o

f c

yc

lis

ts

ge

ttin

g

hit

by

do

ors

an

d c

ars

pu

llin

g o

ut o

r p

ark

s.

Als

o t

ha

t

th

ere

is

a d

ivid

ed

ro

ad

on

bo

th

sid

es

in

so

me

are

as

th

at m

ea

n c

ars

ha

ve

to

ch

an

ge

la

ne

s i

n a

n u

nu

su

al

wa

y.

Th

at m

ay

als

o i

nc

re

as

e t

he

am

ou

nt o

f a

cc

i-

de

nts

th

at o

cc

ur.

Th

e p

ark

ed

ca

rs

we

re

ce

rta

inly

fe

atu

re

d i

n t

he

ga

me

in

a b

ig w

ay, b

ut b

ec

au

se

th

e

ga

me

ma

inly

fo

cu

se

d o

n t

he

le

ftm

os

t b

icy

cle

la

ne

,

th

e d

ivid

ed

ro

ad

s d

idn

’t i

mp

ac

t t

he

ga

me

th

at I

no

tic

ed

.

Th

e g

am

e c

erta

inly

do

es

co

ntrib

ute

to

c

om

mu

nic

a-

tio

n b

etw

ee

n d

iffe

re

nt r

oa

d u

se

rs

. It

pu

ts

driv

ers

an

d

pe

op

le w

ho

us

e p

ub

lic

tra

ns

po

rt i

n a

cy

cli

st’s

sh

oe

s

an

d I

th

ink

ma

ke

s e

ve

ry

pla

ye

r t

hin

k “

wo

w, I

ha

d n

o

ide

a i

t w

as

lik

e t

his

fo

r c

yc

lis

ts

”.

I th

ink

th

is m

ak

es

pla

ye

rs

wa

nt t

o h

ea

r m

ore

ab

ou

t t

he

da

ng

ers

th

at

be

fa

ll c

yc

lis

ts

on

a d

ail

y b

as

is a

nd

wh

at t

he

y c

an

do

to

driv

e m

ore

sa

fe

ly.

Did

pla

ying

the

gam

e in

flue

nce

your

op

inio

ns a

bout

St.

Kild

a R

oad

as a

pl

ace

of u

rban

life

? H

ow?

Did

the

wor

ksho

p gi

ve y

ou id

eas

abou

t de

sign

pos

sibi

litie

s in

rel

atio

nshi

p to

ur

ban

cycl

ing?

Giv

e ex

ampl

es.

Do

you

thin

k w

orks

hops

and

tool

s of

this

ty

pe c

an e

nhan

ce p

ublic

con

sult

atio

n in

re-

gard

to d

esig

n of

urb

an in

fras

truc

ture

? H

ow?

Ye

s.

In i

ts

cu

rre

nt f

orm

an

d f

un

ctio

n i

t d

oe

s l

ittle

to

pro

vid

e f

or u

rb

an

lif

e.

No.

I’ve

alr

eady

spe

nt s

igni

fica

nt ti

me

look

ing

at

dif

fe

re

nt d

es

ign

op

tio

ns

. H

ow

ev

er,

it w

as

go

od

to

co

ns

oli

da

te

.

Ye

s.

As

it m

ak

es

pe

op

le h

av

e t

o s

hif

t t

he

ir m

ind

se

t i

n

ho

w t

he

y e

xp

erie

nc

e S

t K

ild

a R

oa

d.

It g

av

e t

he

ro

ute

an

id

en

tit

y a

nd

dif

fe

re

ntia

te

d

fro

m a

ll c

yc

lin

g p

ro

ble

ms

ma

kin

g t

he

is

su

es

pre

se

nt s

ee

m m

ore

ap

pro

ac

ha

ble

an

d t

an

gib

le

to

ch

an

ge

ra

th

er t

ha

n j

us

t t

he

ge

ne

ra

l c

om

me

nt

th

at c

yc

lin

g i

nfra

stru

ctu

re

is

ba

d a

s a

wh

ole

an

d

ther

efor

e to

o la

rge

a pr

oble

m to

fix.

Ye

s w

e t

alk

ed

to

ge

th

er a

bo

ut t

he

se

pa

ra

te

d r

ou

te

in C

ob

urg

th

at w

e w

ou

ld l

ike

se

em

ap

pli

ed

. T

he

Co

pe

nh

ag

en

id

ea

s a

lso

he

lpe

d.

Ye

s,

it e

nc

ou

ra

ge

s u

nd

ers

ta

nd

ing

be

tw

ee

n g

ro

up

s o

f

pe

op

le a

nd

th

ere

fo

re

mo

re

to

lera

nc

e, a

pp

re

cia

tio

n o

f t

he

ne

ed

to

ch

an

ge

an

d i

ns

tig

ate

s p

os

sib

le s

olu

tio

ns

.

It m

ad

e m

e r

ea

liz

e h

ow

po

orly

pla

nn

ed

an

d u

n-

de

r f

ac

ilit

ate

d s

om

e o

f t

he

stre

ets

in

Me

lbo

urn

e

are

to

to

da

ys

mo

re

up

da

te

d m

od

es

of t

ra

ns

po

rt

It d

id n

ot g

ive

me

dire

ct id

eas

but d

efine

tely

mad

e m

e t

hin

k a

bo

ut h

ow

mu

ch

th

ere

wa

s t

o g

ain

fro

m

a w

ork

sh

op

dir

ec

tly

de

dic

ate

d t

o c

om

ing

up

wit

h

ne

w w

ay

s t

o a

ch

iev

e “

ha

rm

on

y:

on

th

e r

oa

d w

ith

all

th

e d

iffe

re

nt t

yp

es

of c

om

mu

te

rs

Ye

s,

th

e m

ore

in

vo

lve

d a

nd

in

te

ra

ctiv

e f

orm

ats

su

ch

as

th

is w

ork

sh

op

he

lp t

he

pu

bli

c/a

tte

nd

ee

s t

o g

et a

re

al

fe

el

fo

r t

he

me

ss

ag

e t

ry

ing

to

be

bro

ad

ca

ste

d r

ath

er t

ha

n t

he

tra

dit

ion

al

info

rm

atio

n d

um

p.

My

ge

ne

ra

l im

pre

ss

ion

is

th

at p

eo

ple

try

to

av

oid

bo

th

driv

ing

an

d c

yc

lin

g u

p S

t K

ild

a r

oa

d

if t

he

y c

an

av

oid

it.

Wh

en

I d

riv

e u

p, m

y f

oc

us

is g

etti

ng to

the

dest

inat

ion

quic

kly

wit

hout

re

all

y t

ak

ing

in

my

su

rro

un

din

gs

. P

lay

ing

th

e

gam

e ha

s in

flue

nced

the

way

I th

ink

in S

t Kild

a R

oa

d n

ow

. I’

m a

lmo

st h

yp

era

wa

re

of a

ny

th

ing

aro

un

d m

e.

Bo

th

th

e g

am

e a

nd

th

e w

ork

sh

op

hig

hli

gh

te

d t

he

fru

stra

tio

n f

elt

an

d d

an

ge

r p

os

ed

by

pa

rk

ing

-

juttin

g o

ut o

n t

he

bik

e l

an

e -

es

pe

cia

lly

wit

h l

arg

e

ve

hic

les

. C

re

atin

g a

la

rg

er b

uffe

r b

etw

ee

n p

ark

ed

ca

rs

, b

us

es

an

d l

arg

er v

eh

icle

s i

s w

ha

t I

wo

uld

pro

po

se

.

Ab

so

lute

ly.

As

pre

vio

us

ly m

en

tio

ne

d, s

om

e r

oa

d u

se

rs

are

fo

cu

se

d o

n t

he

ir d

es

tin

atio

n s

o m

uc

h t

ha

t o

th

er

fa

cto

rs

are

n’t

co

ns

ide

re

d.

Wo

rk

sh

op

s p

ro

vid

e a

fu

lle

r

pic

tu

re

of w

ha

t i

s g

oin

g o

n a

nd

co

ns

ide

rs

all

ro

ad

us

ers

inv

olv

ed

.

It re

info

rced

my

feel

ing

that

it d

efini

tely

is a

d

an

ge

ro

us

ex

pe

rie

nc

e, b

ut a

ve

ry

im

po

rta

nt a

r-

te

ry

fo

r c

yc

lis

ts

tra

ve

llin

g t

o t

he

cit

y -

of c

ou

rs

e,

on

ly i

n t

he

so

uth

-n

orth

dir

ec

tio

n.

It d

id m

ak

e

me

th

ink

th

at s

o m

an

y t

hin

gs

co

uld

be

do

ne

to

ma

ke

St K

ild

a R

oa

d s

afe

r f

or c

yc

lis

ts

- e

g g

et

rid

of p

ark

ed

ca

rs

, w

ide

r b

ike

la

ne

s o

f c

ou

rs

e,

an

d t

he

pre

fe

re

ntia

l g

re

en

lig

hts

fo

r c

yc

lis

ts

.

Ma

yb

e t

he

ga

me

co

uld

ha

ve

em

ph

as

ise

d t

he

pro

ble

m o

f w

ha

t h

ap

pe

ns

wh

en

ev

ery

on

e s

to

ps

at t

he

lig

hts

- e

g w

he

re

cy

cli

sts

ne

ed

to

po

sit

in

th

em

se

ve

ls.

Cu

rre

ntly

, m

ark

up

s a

re

co

nfu

sin

g

, e

sp

ec

iall

y w

he

n t

he

re

are

la

ne

[c

larif

y]

on

th

e

left

Se

e (

4.)

I

als

o e

njo

yd

se

ein

g t

he

in

no

va

tiv

e

pa

rk

ing

id

ea

s s

ho

wn

in

[A

ctiv

ity

2B

]. I

lik

ed

th

e

Nor

man

Fos

ter i

deas

of e

leva

ting

the

bike

lane

s. In

hi

s ca

se, a

bove

the

Lond

on U

nder

grou

nd. I

real

ly

th

ink

th

e o

nly

sa

fe

bik

ela

ne

is

a s

ep

era

te

d b

ike

lan

e.

Defi

nite

ly. T

he w

hole

wor

ksho

p w

as e

ngag

ing

part

ly

be

ca

us

e o

f t

he

us

e o

f m

ixe

d s

tim

uli

- p

ho

to

s,

vid

eo

s a

nd

of c

ou

rs

e t

he

iP

ho

ne

ga

me

. Y

ou

ne

ed

to

en

ga

ge

dif

fe

re

nt

an

d m

ore

nu

me

ro

us

ca

te

go

rie

s o

f u

de

rs

as

th

e s

am

ple

wa

s s

ma

ll.

Ho

we

ve

r, I

th

ink

th

is t

yp

e o

f l

ive

ly w

ork

sh

op

ha

s g

re

at p

ote

ntia

l fo

r s

ch

oo

ls, e

ve

n l

ea

rn

ers

driv

ers

an

d

oth

er g

ro

up

s.

I kno

w th

at S

t Kild

a Ro

ad is

a m

agni

fice

nt b

ou-

lav

ard

- a

s w

ell

as

an

im

po

rta

nt c

om

mu

te

r r

ou

te

to

an

d f

ro

m t

he

cit

y.

Bu

t I

wa

s s

o e

ng

ro

ss

ed

in

trin

g t

o b

e k

ille

d t

ha

t I

did

no

t h

av

e t

ime

to

no

te

th

e u

rb

an

de

sig

n b

ea

utie

s i

n t

he

ga

me

.

Th

e o

bv

ius

id

ea

is

fo

r C

op

en

ha

ge

n s

ty

le b

ike

lan

es

. I

kn

ow

th

at t

he

re

are

va

rio

us

is

su

es

an

d

desi

gn d

iffi

cult

ies

wit

h th

is. P

erha

ps th

e ne

xt

ga

me

co

uld

be

to

de

sig

n t

he

bik

e l

an

es

! I

lov

ed

th

e

pic

tu

re

of b

ike

rid

ers

in

Ja

pa

n(?

) P

ull

ed

in

to

a d

oc

k

ty

pe

stru

ctu

re

wit

h b

ike

s -

la

pto

ps

- t

he

im

po

r-

ta

nc

e o

f[c

larif

y]

an

d f

un

ctio

na

lly

bik

e r

ac

ks

.

Ye

s, e

sp

ec

iall

y f

or t

he

mo

to

ris

ts

wh

o h

av

e n

ot r

idd

en

a b

ike

sin

ce

th

ey

we

re

kid

s a

nd

se

e r

ide

rs

as

blo

od

y

nu

isa

nc

es

ra

th

er t

ha

n l

eg

itia

mte

ro

ad

us

ers

. It

ch

an

ge

s

th

eir

co

nc

iou

sn

es

s.

The

gam

e di

d no

t infl

uenc

e m

y op

inio

ns a

bout

S

t K

ild

a R

oa

d a

s a

pla

ce

of u

rb

an

lif

e.

In f

ac

t i

t

jus

t h

igh

lig

hte

d t

he

fa

ct t

ha

t i

t i

s a

ve

ry

bu

sy

and

muc

h fr

eque

nted

car

riag

eway

.

I b

eli

ev

e t

ha

t c

yc

lis

ts

an

d c

ars

sh

ou

ld b

e s

ep

ara

t-

ed

. A

n e

xc

ell

en

t e

xa

mp

le i

s S

t G

eo

rg

es

Rd

fro

m

Fitz

roy

to P

rest

on. T

he c

ycle

trac

k is

in th

e ce

ntre

o

f t

he

ro

ad

be

sid

e t

he

tra

m t

ra

ck

. T

he

re

are

na

tu

re

stri

ps a

nd fl

ora

sepa

rati

ng th

e do

uble

lane

s of

tr

affi

c on

eit

her s

ide.

I ha

ve lo

ng th

ough

t thi

s is

a

gre

at i

de

a b

ut w

ou

ld p

ro

ba

bly

be

to

o c

os

tly

to

do

in S

t K

ild

a R

oa

d.

I th

ink

wo

rk

sh

op

s l

ike

th

is c

erta

inly

wo

uld

en

ha

nc

e

pu

bli

c o

pin

ion

in

re

ga

rd

to

th

e d

es

ign

of u

rb

an

in

fra

-

stru

ctu

re

. A

ny

in

fo

rm

atio

n t

ha

t w

ill

ed

uc

ate

pe

op

le

ab

ou

t t

he

en

vir

on

me

nt t

ha

t t

he

y l

ive

in

w

ou

ld h

av

e t

o b

e

bene

fici

al.

I k

no

w S

t k

ild

a r

oa

d i

s a

n i

nte

rs

tin

g e

nv

iro

-

me

nt,t

he

ga

me

did

no

t a

lte

rth

at i

mp

re

ss

ion

,bu

t I

co

ns

ide

r t

he

ga

me

ma

de

me

aw

are

th

at

pla

nn

ing

of b

ike

pa

th

s e

tc

ne

ed

a l

ot m

ore

wo

rk

ye

s s

om

eh

ow

th

e p

ath

s n

ee

d t

o b

e c

on

tin

u-

ou

s,a

nd

I b

eli

ev

e a

lit

tle

wid

er

I th

ink

th

is t

oo

l is

po

we

rfu

l ,p

artic

ula

rly

in

ma

kin

g b

oth

cy

cli

sts

an

d d

riv

ers

aw

are

of t

he

co

mm

on

pro

ble

ms

of

su

rv

ivin

g o

n t

he

ro

ad

.a

lso

I s

ug

ge

st t

ha

t s

uc

h g

am

ing

to

ols

co

uld

be

in

tro

du

ce

d i

n s

ch

oo

ls t

o m

ak

e o

ur f

utu

re

cy

cli

sts

an

d d

riv

ers

be

mo

re

aw

are

of t

he

is

su

es

an

d

da

ng

ers

.

It r

ein

fo

re

d t

he

co

nn

ota

tio

ns

of d

an

ge

r a

nd

co

ng

es

tio

n.

(No

t r

ea

lly, m

ay

be

a s

ka

te

bo

ard

ing

ga

me

hig

h-

lig

htin

g t

he

da

ng

ers

of s

ka

te

bo

ard

ing

?)

Ye

s,

ap

pro

ac

hin

g t

he

is

su

e i

n a

n u

no

rth

od

ox

wa

y e

n-

ab

led

th

e o

pp

ortu

nit

y f

or n

ov

el

ide

as

.

no

. th

e g

am

e r

ein

fo

rc

es

st k

ild

a r

oa

d a

s a

co

n-

du

it f

or t

ra

ve

l (n

o s

to

pp

ing

an

d s

oc

iali

sin

g i

n

ga

me

pla

y).

[re

al

life

]

yes:

con

nect

ing

the

bike

lane

the

who

le ro

ute;

s

ep

ara

tin

g c

yc

lin

g f

ro

m p

ark

ing

AN

D d

riv

ing

(ie

.

no

t p

lac

ing

cy

cli

ng

in

be

tw

ee

n p

ark

ing

/d

riv

ing

lan

es

) s

o c

ars

do

n’t

blo

ck

th

e r

ou

te

(g

ra

de

se

pa

ra

-

tion

?); p

ossi

ble

scor

ing

syst

em in

RL?

? (ie

. sim

liar

to

gre

en

lig

hts

pa

cin

g d

ista

nc

e b

etw

ee

n l

igh

ts

?)

YE

S Y

ES

YE

S.

ga

me

wil

l h

av

e t

o b

e i

ns

an

ely

we

ll-d

ev

el-

oped

, but

it is

defi

nite

ly re

fres

hing

and

mor

e en

gagi

ng to

pa

rtic

ipat

e in

an

acti

vity

that

sim

ulat

es R

L, ra

ther

than

ta

lkin

g a

bs

tra

ctly

ab

ou

t s

itu

atio

ns

(in

ev

ita

bly

le

ad

s t

o

co

nfro

nta

tio

n b

etw

ee

n s

ta

ke

ho

lde

r g

ro

up

s)

4. T

he g

ame

infl

uenc

ed m

y op

inio

ns a

bout

St

Kil

da

ro

ad

in

th

e s

en

se

th

at I

did

n’t

re

ali

se

ho

w

imp

orta

nt i

t w

as

as

a c

yc

lin

g r

oa

d a

nd

th

at i

t i

s

als

o a

da

ng

er t

o t

he

cy

cli

sts

us

ing

th

e r

oa

d.

To

me

as

a d

riv

er,

it w

as

ju

st a

no

th

er r

oa

d r

ea

lly,

no

t t

ha

t d

iffe

re

nt f

ro

m a

ny

oth

er b

ut p

lay

ing

th

e

ga

me

in

tro

du

ce

d m

e t

o a

no

th

er v

iew

po

int.

5.

Th

e w

ork

sh

op

did

giv

e m

e a

fe

w i

de

as

ab

ou

t

de

sig

nin

g n

ew

wa

ys

fo

r c

yc

lis

ts

to

us

e t

he

ro

ad

.

Th

e m

ain

id

ea

th

at I

ha

d w

ou

ld b

e s

om

e k

ind

of

co

mp

lete

ly s

ep

ara

te

cy

cli

ng

la

ne

th

at c

ars

ac

tu

-

all

y c

an

no

t u

se

. S

imil

ar t

o a

fo

otp

ath

bu

t p

ure

ly

fo

r c

yc

lis

ts

to

us

e, w

ith

no

pa

rk

ed

ca

rs

etc

. Id

ea

lly

ru

nn

ing

pa

ra

lle

l to

th

e r

oa

d a

nd

pe

rh

ap

s b

elo

w o

r

ab

ov

e t

he

ro

ad

. E

ve

n j

us

t s

om

e k

ind

of b

oll

ard

to

sepa

rate

the

two

area

s w

ould

be

suffi

cien

t I th

ink.

D

riv

ers

an

d c

yc

lis

ts

sh

ou

ld b

e a

ble

to

co

ex

ist

wit

ho

ut a

cc

ide

nts

in

th

e s

am

e s

pa

ce

bu

t t

his

is

ob

vio

us

ly n

ot r

ea

lis

tic

an

d I

th

ink

se

pa

ra

tin

g t

he

m

en

tir

ely

is

th

e b

es

t a

nd

sa

fe

st o

ptio

n.

6.

I th

ink

wo

rk

sh

op

s a

nd

to

ols

of t

his

ty

pe

are

th

e b

es

t

wa

y t

o e

nh

an

ce

pu

bli

c c

on

su

lta

tio

n f

or t

he

de

sig

n o

f

urb

an

in

fra

stru

ctu

re

. It

re

all

y g

ets

pe

op

le i

nv

olv

ed

an

d

inv

ite

s t

he

m t

o f

orm

op

inio

ns

on

th

e s

ub

jec

t t

ha

t t

he

y

wo

uld

n’t

ha

ve

th

ou

gh

t a

bo

ut o

th

erw

ise

. T

he

se

kin

ds

of

wo

rk

sh

op

s a

re

re

all

y e

ng

ag

ing

I t

hin

k a

nd

giv

es

pe

op

le

dif

fe

re

nt v

iew

po

ints

to

th

ink

ab

ou

t.

I re

all

y l

ike

th

e h

an

ds

on

ap

pro

ac

h.

367

ST KILDA JUN

CTION

END

OF BIKELAN

E

GRADE SEPERATED

BIKE LANE

ST KILDA JUN

CTION

BUSSES &

HO

RSE CARRIAGES


G

90° BIKELANE TU

RN

PEDESTRIAN

XING

TAXIS

BOTTLENECK EN

TRY

PEDS WAITIN

G FOR TRAM

TRAM SU

PERSTOP

TRAM TRACKS

LANE CH

ANGE

BLIND

CURVE

THIN

BIKE LANE

MU

LTPLE LIGHTS

PEDESTRIAN

XING

DO

UBLE PARKED

TAXIS

LANE CH

ANGE X 2

HO

RSESHIT

PEDESTRIAN

CROSSIN

G

90° BIKELANE TU

RN

CARS CROSSIN

G BIKELANE

HO

RSE CARRIAGE/TRAMS

HO

RSE CARRIAGE/TRAMS

HO

RSE CARRIAGE/TRAMS

TRAMSTO

P/BIKELANE SW

AP MATERIAL

DESIGN

HU


E

GRADE SEPERATED

BIKE PATHS

CAT CALLING FRO

M TRAM

STOPS

ALTERNATIVE FO

OTPATH RO

UTE

369

ST KILDA JUN

CTION

END

OF BIKELAN

E

GRADE SEPERATED

BIKE LANE

ST KILDA JUN

CTION

BUSSES &

HO

RSE CARRIAGES


G

90° BIKELANE TU

RN

PEDESTRIAN

XING

TAXIS

BOTTLENECK EN

TRY

PEDS WAITIN

G FOR TRAM

TRAM SU

PERSTOP

TRAM TRACKS

LANE CH

ANGE

BLIND

CURVE

THIN

BIKE LANE

MU

LTPLE LIGHTS

PEDESTRIAN

XING

DO

UBLE PARKED

TAXIS

LANE CH

ANGE X 2

HO

RSESHIT

PEDESTRIAN

CROSSIN

G

90° BIKELANE TU

RN

CARS CROSSIN

G BIKELANE

HO

RSE CARRIAGE/TRAMS

HO

RSE CARRIAGE/TRAMS

HO

RSE CARRIAGE/TRAMS

TRAMSTO

P/BIKELANE SW

AP MATERIAL

DESIGN

HU


E

GRADE SEPERATED

BIKE PATHS

CAT CALLING FRO

M TRAM

STOPS

ALTERNATIVE FO

OTPATH RO

UTE

Documents

Pocket Pedal